User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 2

Saw 3D
Hey Darkwarrior, did you pass Saw 3D for GAN? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at this and tell me what you see. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The correct answer is that the article is still at GAN. You didn't close the review. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You just look at this to show what templates to use and after passing, place it at WP:GA. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed it passed. I knew it was good article, but I was prepared to fix any problems that it may have had. I had been working on since before Saw 3D started filming (GroundZero helped). :) About the picture issue you brought up.  You think it's really too crowded? :(   I don't want to remove the Cary picture.. maybe James and Leigh? — Mike  Allen   03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a major issue, just seemed excessive, but of them all I wouldn't lose Cary, he's probably the most notable franchise character after Jigsaw and Amanda. You could always get rid of the Gina Holden one, place Russell there instead.  Even putting (Joyce) there I barely remember who she was but then it was just a bad, unmemorable film.   I think its worth of being GA either way, it was just a personal comment so if you think its fine as is, leave it.  It doesn't harm your ability to read what is going on in that section.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The table at Scream (film series)
I know what you're trying to do, but it doesn't work. I'm seeing at 80% the same thing that you're seeing at 100%. A gap between the first line and the table. This will happen depending on screen size / resolution because of the infobox on the right. It looks pretty weird when the main table only goes 3/4 of the way across the page though! Try making your browser window smaller to emulate this. The problem (and to be honest, it's not a major one - purely aesthetic) is that if the two tables bump into each other, it puts the main table below the infobox. Maybe there's a way to stop this happening, but I don't know the markup. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 80% of my screen isn't available (small monitor at work you see), so it automatically sends the table below the infobox. I tried to have a look for some markup that will make the table take up all available white space, but haven't found anything yet.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Best I could do would be email you a screen dump... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay - I saw the response sent at the helpdesk, and that seems to solve the problem... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviews
You are very welcome for both reviews. I thought I had responded here to your earlier post - sorry. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Scream box office
Yes, all of them (including Scream) have been adjusted. So, Scream made 293 million in literal dollars, but when adjusted it is more than that because the value of the dollar increased. As for domestic over global it depends on what you mean. Are you meaning, global franchises (e.g., including films like Ju-On?) or global as in the foreign money that films like Scream, Friday the 13th, etc. brought in? If it is the former, then I wouldn't even know where to begin. The initial source that I used only compared a handful of horror franchises, and they were American franchises. Not to mention the fact that these American franchises are probably more well known around the world than any foreign franchise. You can virtually go anywhere and show them Freddy or Jason and they'd know who they were. If you mean the international grosses for these films, then no there is not enough information. Most of the older franchises don't have a lot of reported foreign box grosses, even though we know they were released internationally. Take Friday the 13th for example. I cannot find a reliable source for foreign box office for at least half of the films. Now, even if I could I still could not use those figures when comparing franchises in adjusted dollars because I'd probably never be able to find conversions for the foreign dollars in each of the different countries that the film's appear in. That was why I kept the list to comparing other "American" horror franchises to each other because I cannot find any information for non-American films and then it would be next to impossible to try and adjust for inflation with every different type of currency being used for the foreign releases. I mean, Europe uses the Euro now, but 20 year ago they were all using different currency.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone has converted them to dollars, but what they have not done is inflated the original currency to 2010 rates and then converted them to dollars. For instance, let's say that we had the foreign totals for every film in each franchise. What we do not have are the adjusted rates for each country. If I simply took the converted figure and adjusted that, it would not be accurate because each countries currency does not adjust on the same level and rate. Thus, the U.S. dollar could be worth 5 times as much today as it was in 1980, but the Yen might only be with 3 times as much in the same time period. Thus, I would be inflating a figure greater than it was actually worth. That is why I don't include them in the adjusted rates. Obviously, as you noticed, I cannot compare them each on an unadjusted rate including the foreign figures because we don't have even estimated foreign figures for a lot of the older horror films because we didn't have the internet then and it wasn't as easy to put in one location like Box Office Mojo or something. It's great information, it's just hard to actually compare it when it's not accurate.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File naming/re-naming
The basic thought is for making file names that are as decriptive as possible. But when we look here:File mover for reasons to make name changes:   don't rename, it sounds like they should be left as is because the name problem isn't a big one. You can file a request for the name changes here if you want. Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming HTH! We hope (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think whatever is on the box has to stay there. The same would be true for adding anything to the image of the box-you wouldn't be able to do that because once either of those things are done, the image you're using stops being an actual copy of the cover and would have an invalid license since that's based on the actual cover.


 * Have seen a lot of album and DVD covers wind up being deleted because it turned out that what was supposedly the music cover turned out not to be an actual one. Some fans of various artists and groups have made what's known as "fantasy covers", where the fan re-designs the music cover. Much of this (films, music, games) truly does have more than one legitimate cover created by the company for marketing purposes and if there's an alternate cover that has the wording removed, you certainly would be able to re-upload a new/different version of the file. We hope (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ghostface Awareness
I was wondering why it didn't fit. I mean, he turned right around to face her, appearing to have known where she was. With Gale, we did not see him chase her to that area, but she found he was there searching it already. Also, when she almost walks into view of him, he immediately checks the room she was in. And though he had no reason to believe she was in it, he continues to follow the path she was taking to attempt escape. Then there was the bathroom stall incident, which should speak for itself. There are other occurrences too, such as Ghostface knowing Sidney was about to attract attention to herself despite not being able to see her actions. Then there's his tendency to call people at some pretty pinpoint times, such as Casey right before she was to call the police (after he rang the doorbell), or CiCi when she was standing right in front of the closet he was hiding in (before his physical attack). There were just too many 'coincidences' of it IMO. I don't find being klutzy at times to be that major a detractor. Besides, I only recall him truly falling of his own accord once; the first chase on Sidney in Scream 2 (bumping and falling over the lamp and couch). He's usually only downed by something his target does in self-defense, hardly obvious things. We can't get something about his awareness in there? 173.77.23.212 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're talking about isn't awareness it's omniscience. He "turns" or "looks" when its dramatic for the script, with Gale he was just searching, he doesn't know shes there or he'd have found her, its all just for drama.  He was searching Casey's house because he couldn't find her and turned to see her, he wasn't posing waiting for her to look through the window.  Basically, he has some abnormal physical attributes but he isn't REALLY super strong or REALLY able to take a bullet but one thing he does not have is the ability to know where people are or that they're about to use the phone any more than you or I know where someone is or that they're about to use the phone because they just called out "I'm about to use the phone".  The toilet thing was awkwardly done and silly but it still doesn't mean he can see through walls or sense when someone has their ear pressed against a wall.  So no, he doesn't have super awareness, he's just one step ahead of the person he is attacking because he is prepared and they're scared and not thinking straight.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority of his 'supernatural abilities' can be written off as only being present for the benefit of the story or for 'dramatic effect'. However, they are also listed. I see only his stealth abilities as being something the character seems to 'truly possesses', though the others are listed too (his 'strength' and 'durability'). I feel something should be said for what I was describing as well, considering there's been plenty of instances of it shown throughout the series, even considering those scenes. For a quick instance, look back at the Casey occurrence; going within the boundaries of the story itself, it seems a bit too coincidental that he just happened to end up at that exact window at that exact time (when she poked out a little too far that time) with his back turned just to turn right on the spot to look her dead in the eye when she stood up. Notice he wasn't searching at that precise moment but just standing there. 173.77.23.212 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other abilities are used often and with consistency. He is always able to appear and disappear when he needs to, hes always able to overpower people and hes always able to take a vase to the face or beer bottle to the crotch.  What you are arguing is that he began searching for Casey in the house, then decided he knew where she was and posed while waiting for her to rise up exactly in front of that window.  Plus again theres the incidence that he only came close to Gale because the other doors in the area were locked, as Gale discovered and after going in there he still didn't know where she was.  He isn't any more aware than any other character, he just has the advantage of being on the attack rather than the defense, being armed and having some sort of plan in place like walking out of the emergency doors in the cinema as soon as he's done stabbing Maureen.  It's not one of his particular abilities, its just dramatic coincidence.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say fair enough, since I do realize that it is true that the other abilities listed did tend to be showcased more often and bluntly. No matter; I just feel there was enough to show this as well 173.77.23.212 (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always take it to hte discussion page for the article itself and get others opinions, I don't own the page, but I firmly believe he has no special awareness, just dramatic license while the strength has him taking our two armed cops and lifting bodies straight over his headDarkwarriorblake (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When has he ever lifted someone straight over his head before?? I recall him lifting people before, but only to throw them from something (like a balcony), which wouldn't require exception strength. An overhead lift might, but, like I said, I can't recall him ever doing that 173.77.23.212 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't he lift CiCi over his head? I thought he lifted her pretty high and in three, he didnt lift anyone (I think) but they specifically went out of their way in editing to have him kick Cotton's ass despite Cotton being pretty buff.  I can't recall the entire films off the top of my head, they obviously overpowered Steve despite him being a big, tough football player, overwhelmed Sid and Casey easily even with guys being a bit stronger than girls,, put the knife straight through that wall (though it could be some weak wood), er......overpowered Derek in the house, beat up two cops.  I can't remember everything.  Remmeber I'm not saying he is super strong, like Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers are super strong, hes just shown, in costume, to be generally be physically more powerful and capable of doing things huge wrestlers normally do while out of costume they get their ass kicked pretty easily.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CiCi was not lifted overhead. Merely the same way Tyson was in Scream 3; just enough to get them over the ledge really. He did defeat Cotton, but, he hardly 'kicked his ass'; Cotton was actually on the upper hand when Ghostface merely hit him with the bookshelf to turn the tables. A bookshelf he only moved about a few inches at best, and in a very quick motion (since Cotton was leaning over to retrieve the golf club). No notable 'super' strength there. They may have overpowered Steve, but, as you said, 'they'; it can become much easier to overpower someone if you outnumber them. Overwhelming either Sidney or Casey wouldn't have taken much strength to do, considering they were female (while both killers were male) and Sidney wasn't hardened like she became later in the series. He did put the knife through the stall and later the door to the Frat house. That, indeed, would take some strength to do. Though, it was only in Scream 2 that he tended to display the strength to simply puncture through objects like that; in Scream 1, he stabbed at Sidney when she was backed against a door (like in 2), but, he did not stab through it. In Scream 3, when Christine was trapped in the room with Ghostface trying to get in, he couldn't stab right through the door then either. He had to work the knife in (and that was with the intention to stab through it). Besides, why can we use the bathroom scene to show his strength but not his awareness? I mean, before you said it was silly! Also, we never actually see what happens between Ghostface and Derek. But, from what it seems, he merely sliced him then ran off. Derek may have been overpowering him. As for the cops, he took one out by surprise and the other by outmaneuvering him. He didn't really overpower either (except for, perhaps, that slamming the second cop into the door repeatedly). The whole point was about Ghostface (the killer in costume); the awareness addition wasn't meant to spread to the people behind the mask, as the page seemed meant for the character of Ghostface itself 173.77.23.212 (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in.. but have you ever wore a Ghostface mask? You can't really see clearly.  lol — Mike   Allen   03:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Scream 4
I see IPs editing Ghostface on the Scream characters article. I'm sure they are adding the killer(s). I have taken it off my watchlist as I will shit if they actually used the edit summary and add the killer. LOL — Mike  Allen   03:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't Scream (film series) be Scream (franchise)? Also what was Craven's cameo? I didn't catch it. — Mike   Allen   23:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're watching this page. I don't think its a franchise because it has no real external elements to it like a video game, books, comics, etc.  It has merchandise though so maybe that counts and I think they are releasing/released an IPhone game to tie in with the movie.  And Craven's cameo was as customer in the book store when Sid is doing her speechDarkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the soundtracks count as well.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_franchise it might actually qualify as a franchise.
 * Not sure what Wiki Film guidelines are for franchise pages. Oh I didn't really pay attention to the people in the book store. lol — Mike  Allen   00:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's too late now, just went ahead and changed every link, so get used to it! I didn't either really but it all was going so fast I really was trying to just catch as much as I could. Thats certainly the problem with not being able to rewind. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read that a LOT of cut out of the final product, comparing to what was in the trailers. I hope we get a good Director's Cut or something.. — Mike   Allen   01:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well for a start there was a picture that shows one of the two girls in the opening strung up and blood everywhere so theres at least one gone, plus Culkin talking about Sidney being royalty which I'm guessing they cut because they rolled the dice to decide who would be in the finale and thought it didn't fit anymore. Which reminds me, the pages might be missing the uncut runtime, I think Scream in cinemas is shorter than Scream on DVD. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have kept up with a lot of just-released films here and I have never seen such different box office figures thrown around like with Scream 4. Every article and even Box Office Mojo had or have different figures. What the hell? Does anyone really know? — Mike  Allen   23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on their sources, it doesn't help that you've got people genuinely trying to contribute and people just pulling figures out of their asses. I've never followed a film on its launch before so I don't know if its always like this but I imagine its going to be in flux for a while, its why I haven't bothered adding the figures to the franchise page.  Have you tried the-numbers.com, its  apretty solid source i've been lead to believe.


 * http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Scream-4 says its on $38 million worldwide, $18 million internationally. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Check this out How fucked up can someone's life be? lol — Mike   Allen   02:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Who? Sidney's? Yeah, she shouldn't have died but she should have been set on the sidelines and a happy life, someone like her should have a huge gun with her at all times.  It'd make the movies shorter but how could you ever possibly relax when the people closest to you keep trying to kill you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. This part: "There will be some continuation of the drama of Sidney Prescott's family and the ghosts that haunt it".  I guess they'll be news if 5 is green light soon. — Mike   Allen   22:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be green lit as fast as the others, its really not doing all that well. I mean its not bombing but Scream 2 made 33 million in its OPENING weekend and this is on like 49 after one week, or two and that's without adjusting for inflation.  I honestly expected it to easily become the highest grossing Scream film just based on how much modern movies generally pull in.  I can see it coming out of cinemas about week 8 maybe with 100 million but its getting reamed right now.  If there is a Scream 5, perhaps this will teach Bob Weinstein to stay mostly out of the way of Craven and Williamson (except if Williamson wanted to kill Sidney, he can stop that happening).Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Scream 4: Kirby
Kirby wasn't shot in the heart, that was Jill. Kirby was stabbed by Charlie twice in the stomach, after she goes to untie him from the chair. She falls to the ground, but is still alive. I put in the "ambiguous" bit because it was left they way to see the audience reactions to the character. Pic Editor960 (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get a source. Pic Editor960 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaving her for dead is the best way to go IMO. If Kevin wanted us know if she survived or not, he would have. We'll know if a Scream 5 cast is announced, if ever. — Mike   Allen   02:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

how alphabetical order really works

???
Comment unnecessary. I got ONE entry out of place. I don't know how you meant it but it came off as passive aggressive. It wasn't appreciated.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I knew, it was something that had been that way forever. Relax. Filling in those edit summary boxes gets tiresome. We're supposed to put comments. Teethmonkey (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that you bring it up, I see from your edit history that you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on comments. They want people to explain edits or check the minor edit box. I know I need to explain more often. You need to start explaining much more often. You usually don't. Teethmonkey (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Variety
If you have Firefox, you can download Greasemonkey and then the user script "Variety overlay removal". — Mike  Allen   21:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Chrome is Mozilla based too isn't it? Would it work in there?  I've only had to go to Variety twice, that thing is silly, you get to view TWO articles ONLY if you log in.  I just went to View Source and got my quote that way but when I archived it I found it it clears that overlay off.  Too late but good for source purposes at leastDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No Chrome isn't. But they may have Greasemonkey for it though.   Another way is to simply delete your cookies and go back to the site. They don't go by IP address, just by cookies. LOL. — Mike   Allen   22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I got it, apparently it has some issues though, won't work on every page, just some. No big deal, thanks for the tip. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Box office summary table
Check out this discussion that may interest you. For the record, I don't mind the box office summary tables to be included in developed articles. But wanted to get consensus before the articles go through GA. — Mike  Allen   00:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Film
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Film to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for March has been published.  April's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 22:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Favor
I looked at the article and think the structure looks much better. Thanks, By the way, Halloween used to be a FA, but is not featured now. The Bride of Frankenstein is a FA. Sorry for the mixup, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection
I've started a discussion about protecting articles for new film releases here. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Campbellcoxarquette.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Campbellcoxarquette.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghostface (Scream) edits
Greetings! I see you've reverted a number of edits at Ghostface (Scream). If I'm reading the situation right, you're treating the removal of text that Sidney survives as vandalism. I don't see this as clear-cut vandalism; I'd recommend explaining why the information should stay, at least in an edit summary and possibly on the talk page. I've advised the IP editor that he's in danger of violating 3RR and should discuss his desired change at the talk page. You should probably switch to the talk page as well—since this isn't clear-cut vandalism, your reverts also put you in jeopardy of violating 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (In response to your comment at my talk page:) Thanks for the heads-up about what's going on with the article. I've run into similar situations with other articles, so I do just rollback the new variants on the same old unsourced information. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Great catch
I can't believe I left "unnamed device" in Wikilink brackets. How embarrassing! Thanks for catching it right away ... and as long as I'm here, may I just say what terrific, surgically careful edits you made to Thor (film). A pleasure to see. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Scream4ostsmall.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Scream4ostsmall.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Scream
Unstable refers to drastic changes to the page. There have not been drastic changes, just lots of small ones. That's going to happen regardless, even during the GAC process if some of the issues are not corrected. Ignoring stylistic changes, there is still a lot of issue with the prose. Plus, there isn't a rush on the GAC process. If the only issue with the page is "unstable" then that's easily arguable. Trust me, if a reviewer says they won't pass it because of that then I'll be right beside you fighting that rediculous conclusion since there are not major changes happening to the article.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * They should be collapsable because it's the same principal behind restricting image sizes. We have to take into consideration people that read Wiki and are not registers users (so they get the default size) and people with low resolution screens. If I restrict an image size (which I don't believe is done on the article anyway) or leave a long list uncollapsed then someone with a low resolution screen setting will be forced with an extremely large image that can either take up the whole screen or push text out of place. It may look fine on your screen, but different resolutions bring different results. With regard to the image, that's a policy issue and no GA, FA, or any article should be include album covers unless there is critical commentary on that album cover. This isn't the same as if the album had its own page and it's used in identifying the subject of the article. Here, it's part of the film page and not only is it the same image as the poster, but there is no commentary on the album cover image itself that would require illustration for a reader to help understand what is being described. That isn't a stylistic change, that's a policy and any article I come across I typically remove it on site because it's a policy violation.


 * As for the critical reception change, having a box that identifies Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic only is placing undue weight on their analysis of the critical reception. It doesn't matter if they are the only ones or one of a 1000 different aggregate sites, we should not place such value on a single entity's analysis. We already lead most reception sections with their data anyway. It's not like with box office data where you are reporting objective facts. This is a subjective analysis. When you start pushing those things in the forefront of a reader you start approaching violations of NPOV because it seems like the article is pushing a particular opinion. I don't mean to be a stickler about these things, I'm just trying to help you create the best article possible.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had also removed the soundtrack poster from Scream 4 as it is the same image as the poster. I always remove soundtrack images from the soundtrack infobox, and have gotten in some arguments (Saw 3D).  One, there is not enough of 'critical commentary' in a soundtrack section of an article. Two, if it's just the same image as the poster in smaller size, why add it?  If the soundtrack has its own article, then maybe the image would work there. Most editors don't follow the imaging rules, so it is hard to tell what is right or wrong without verifying it for yourself... and that can be a chore. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   21:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But most Soundtrack albums are not the same as the poster. They might share similar imagery but they are different.  I mean in most Soundtrack/Album articles, there rarely is commentary on the image, there is no commentary ever on film posters.  Seems arbitrary to give a pass on one image but not another when that image would be fine were I to break it off into a separate article.  Especially in films where they have multiple posters and so just because the one selected for the article shares similarities to the album cover, it immediately disqualifies it.  Scream 4;s first poster for instance was the "4" one, it's ugly, it's bad, I would never want it used in the Scream 4 article on a purely aesthetic level, but if it was used, then the album art would immediately become acceptable.  Same can be said for all the Scream films and most other films.
 * Though honestly, if this is the guideline, there is a tonne of GA that need reassessing. Though admittedly, it seems every film that was made into a GA was last reviewed in 2008.  Pretty much every random GA film article I looked at was assessed three years ago. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in case..
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. :P —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   23:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG, proper cheeky. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Scream (film)/archive1
Sorry that I said Halloween (1978 film) was a FA in Peer review/Scream (film)/archive1 - it used to be one and I just recalled that it had been on the Main page. I also just saw the comment as the bot closed the PR a shirt time ago. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I double check all the PRs closed by the bot and saw your comment at the bottom - missed that I had already replied. Oh well ;-) Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Darkwarriorblake, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Darkwarriorblake/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hangover II
You put a load of details about the most minor and least notable member of the cast in the cast list. And you messed up the refs. Have some perspective. You really think Mason Lee is more important than everyone else in the film? Create an article for him if you want to write about him, don't shoehorn it into a cast list. Barsoomian (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you didn't mess up my ref; though no idea why the name matters to you. But you did screw up this one: Not nice to leave broken code for others to puzzle over. The simplest fix would have been to delete it, but I fixed it for you. Barsoomian (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not being condescending when coming to an editor's talk page to discuss their edits. What do you mean "it's not nice" to leave broken code on the page, you think he did it on purpose?  If you looked at the ref, it was just missing a | after cite web, not that puzzling.  Nevertheless, thanks for fixing it, you should get a barnstar. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   07:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Darkwarriorblake can handle a conversation with me without your kibbitzing. And thanks for demonstrating how to make a condescending remark; I see you are much better at it. Are you stalking me now for disagreeing with you elsewhere? Barsoomian (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blake's page has been on my watchlist long before you came into the picture. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   02:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, this is nothing to do with you unless you're trying to settle a score. Barsoomian (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The name wasn't an issue, just don't like all-caps, it just looks like you're shouting. Also if I'd known the reference was broken I'd have fixed it, I didn't know but thank you for fixing it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I use CAPS for ref names exactly because it help them to stand out in the code, it doesn't affect how the actual page displays. So when I couldn't see that I (incorrectly) assumed it had been reverted/deleted. Otherwise the actual broken ref was apparent in the red  text that appeared in the references section at the bottom of the page. It's always worth checking the final page to see if it all works. I couldn't make the URL you originally used work but I found a direct link to what I assume was the target page.  Barsoomian (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tattoo lawsuit
I'll be happy to discuss the particulars of the wording of that last sentence if you like.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I thought the same thing at first.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

infobox discussion
I moved your comments and my responses. Strictly speaking, that's a no-no, but I thought it might be more clear this way. If you disagree, I apologize for getting it wrong. Maybe you could make your point again with a new post that's more specific. Or, if you're just trying to get Gothicfilm's attention, send him a message. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Piranha 3D: The Sequel
Putting our differences aside, i'd like to ask you for assistance in the development of the Piranha 3D: The Sequel page i just recently created. Let me know.  Rusted AutoParts  (talk) 10:27 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello
I don't think we've collaborated before, but I wanted to say hello. Always a pleasure to see an editor newly working with film articles! As you've probably noticed, the WikiProject Film community is pretty active. If you have any questions about such articles, feel free to drop me a line. Keep up the good work! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI. I'd move it if I was an admin, but I'm not, so... :) If it's the template in the article that's bothering you, we can remove it now. The discussion got the attention it needed. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It can't be moved; I've tried. I think it has to do with The Hangover Part II being edited after a move takes place. It prevents the move from being undone. An admin has to delete that page to be able to move the colon version to the non-colon version. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, your tone was fine. It just helps to have a one-on-one discussion going to see if something can't be worked out, then other editors can join in with feedback. The tone thing was more for Rusty than you, but sometimes we have to remember how to word complaints. After all, the dispute isn't with a vandal, but a fellow editor. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Try not to let Ring Cinema get under your skin. You're not the first. While I recommended trying to work issues out one-on-one, you should at some point agree to disagree and fetch additional feedback to determine a wider consensus. Otherwise, the discussion can go for a long, long time. (See Talk:Titanic (1997 film), for example.) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I can totally relate. I have to try to remember not to invest so much energy in these kinds of discussions. When I'm thinking, "No, it's clearly supposed to be this way," the other party is thinking the exact same thing. At the end of the day, we have to remember that it's just a website and that it's not the end of the world when there are too many or too few names listed in some film article. Personally, I like working on articles about upcoming films because they do not attract that much attention. I wrote Life of Pi (film) yesterday, for example. Another one is 47 Ronin (film), which has a relatively short page history so far. Recently released films (and related counterparts, like the Hangover films) will attract not just readers but editors who have divergent viewpoints. As for plot summaries, honestly, don't worry about them unless you're trying for Good Article or Featured Article status on a film article with less attention. The summaries will never stop changing. They'll get bloated and be trimmed cyclically, since there are just too many ways to describe the plot and because it is the easiest thing for a passerby editor to do. It's more work to do the research and find good secondary sources and contribute content that would normally not be seen. That's the payoff for me, anyway, especially with upcoming films—I like digging into the development history and sharing information that's not necessarily covered in a newspaper article about a just-released film. Anyway, take the occasional break when you can and take a page off your watchlist if it's too stressful. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The notability guidelines for future films says to create a stand-alone article only if filming is verified to have begun. Before the start of filming, anything can happen, such as a writers' strike or the loss of a director. With the start of filming, it is a kind of investment of resources, and it's much less likely for something to happen to the film at that point. If you want to work on the article, you could start a user sub-page: User:Darkwarriorblake/Burt Wonderstone. If the project finally takes off and filming begins, you can move it to the mainspace. If you Google site:variety.com "burt wonderstone", you can find some sources. Sometimes a planned film may be based on source material, and you could create a "Film adaptation" section there. For example, I wrote Shantaram (film), which never took off, but at least its development history is shared with readers. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Mail
 maucho  eagle   ( c ) 23:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied, thanks Maucho. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Horrible-poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Horrible-poster.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Horrible-poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Horrible-poster.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Horrible-poster.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Horrible-poster.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Amazing Spider Man 2012 teaser.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Amazing Spider Man 2012 teaser.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  21:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image sizing
Hi there. Non-free images on Wikipedia are restricted to a size of 160,000 or so pixels, which is 400x400 if the image were square, but could also be 500x320 or 600x266 etc. if the image is rectangular. The resolution should also be below 100 dots per inch (Photoshop uses 72dpi and Paint.NET uses 96dpi as defaults, which are both fine). I am posting this because you've recently uploaded several images that were larger than this. If you do not have at your disposal the ability to reduce the image sizes yourself, you can upload the image as is and leave Non-free reduce on the file description page, and a bot will resize it for you. Thanks,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  22:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle
 Chzz  ► 01:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to have to go through the trouble of signing up to github - yep, same here; I just mentioned it there for completeness. I had a different problem with the new version, and I put it on WT:TW. I've also poked the main author, User_talk:AzaToth.


 * I think, really, we'll have to bear with things a bit. In general though - when it works - the new version is a big improvement. E.g. see Twinkle/Preferences.


 * I know that's not much comfort if it isn't working for you, but, there's always 'teething troubles', I guess. Cheers!  Chzz  ► 01:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see the preferences, says I dont have Twinkle installed. I'm curious if Chrome has updated itself (it seems to do this a lot and break stuff) and that is why it isn't working. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I'm really not sure; I'd suggest just keeping an eye on WT:TW, and maybe trying tomorrow, or something. A bit of an inconvenience, but still. I don't know the technical ins-and-outs of Twinkle, but I do know a lot of people are having troubles - so it's likely to be fixed in the near future.  Chzz  ► 02:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's back on today, dunno what the issue was but thanks for the help :) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 01:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Excessive detail
If you think i add excessive amounts of detail, you should see the Field of Dreams plot!  Rusted AutoParts  (talk) 13:07 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Article better
62.200.73.57 (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your Questions? Your Answers? Your Talk?

Scream Mystery
Hello! Although it is a "who is the killer" type film, many horror films have an unknown figure killing. Feel free to include it, but I'm not so comfortable categorizing a "mystery" film that isn't identifiable with the genre. I mean, when people discuss "scream" they don't say "great mystery film!" they'd say "great horror film!" or maybe horror comedy or something. It's up to you though. Get back to me. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing Eddie Brock
I'm currently re-writing the fiction character history section to more accurately and chronologically describe important events in the subjects character development. Please allow me some time to do self edits, if there's anything you want or need me to change please talk about it before undoing my work. Thank you, Jesse76.110.22.186 (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If the titles cannot be changed then the content has to be re-written to more accurately reflect the title. So either that or new sections should be added.76.110.22.186 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the titles. Publication history talks about the creation of the character and his publication history. Fictional character biography talks about his actions in the comics. There are guidelines for these here Wikipedia:Manual of Style (comics) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man as an example of a good way to do a comic article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, The title of "fictional character biography" has no clarification or distinct to only published material and therefore may very well include any fiction from video game or movie universe as well; therefore a more accurate title is needed such as Published Character history" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.22.186 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point of what I just said. You clearly did not understand my previous statement. I was trying to tell you that the title of the article does not clarify or distinguish only published material. The word "Comic" does not appear in the title, therefore the word fiction could apply to video game or movie. Thats why the title at least needs to say "Comic" but i digress, it useless and pointless to have a plot summary for a copyrighted character, because such a brief plot summary itself fails to explain character motivation. Instead of this section, it should just be a chronological list of Eddie's stories such as ASM # 300, 315-17 etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.22.186 (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Green Lantern
And I do respect your 2 cents, having seen that you're a very good and careful editor. Based on my opinion of your judgment, if you want to reinsert, I'll grudgingly go along &mdash; though it feels to me like original-research analysis to compare it the other movies, whereas simply giving the numbers seems more like just concrete facts. I'm also not sure what the factual value of such comparisons are in an encyclopedia, as opposed to in the trade press where they presumably may help executives make decisions. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What the Green Lantern (film) box-office section said was:

"...earning $3.4 million in 1,180 midnight runs, on par with 20th Century Fox's X-Men: First Class, and slightly better than the $3.3 million grossed by Paramount Studios and Marvel Studios' Thor.[74] The film went on to gross $21.6 million on Friday, but fell 22% on Saturday for a weekend total of $52.7 million debut, earning it the No. 1 spot. It ultimately opened behind Thor ($65 million) and X-Men First Class ($55.1 million).[75]"


 * So, yes, this version compares it to two other superhero movies, but my feeling is, unless you're a film-industry professional, so what? And if superhero-movie comparisons are important, why not include other recent superhero movies from the past few months or within the last year, say, when ticket-price inflation isn't a factor? Or why not compare Green Lantern to Super 8 or other recent science-fiction films? Or why not compare it to other recent big studio films, like The Hangover Part II? Before adding comparisons, I wonder if we could start a discussion on the Green Lantern page about this, since comparisons seems arbitrary, as opposed to just giving the plain numbers, as WikiProject Films does for virtually all other movies. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken revert?
I don't know what you were trying to do when you did this, but I guess it was not what you ended up doing. --uKER (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's exactly what I meant to do. I removed the information from an unverifiable, unreliable, unsustainable, fan source and without that information it meant they go back in the list. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The unverifiable, unreliable, unblah, blah, blah, source you're talking about is Michael Bay's personally appointed administrator posting in Michael Bay's official forum. Needless to say, as he said, the twins are NOT in the film. --uKER (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Family Guy
Not sure what you where doing with the revert, There where actually two different articles for the same Episode. It looks like one is a copy/paste of the other, which is why it didnt have a rationale. Ive redirected the copy/paste title to the actual article. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 00:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * glug**glug*. I don't even drink but man, working here, you need a damn drink. *glug*.  Thanks Mike. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't either.. but I thought it would be better than a kitten. :P —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   01:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: nbsp Thing
Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 10:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of 30 Rock characters
Hi, thanks for taking care of the deletion of these subjects. While updating the List article I've found that different wikilinks of a characters name point to other articles which in turn redirected to the deleted articles, i.e. Cerie -> Cerie Xerox which redirected to Cerie, which you just deleted. Would you be able to delete these per previous consensus on the other version of their articles or would I need to go through AfD again? The articles in question are: Thanks for reading Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * James "Toofer" Spurlock
 * Cerie Xerox
 * Hey, good catch, thanks, and good job redirecting them to the appropriate articles. You may have a strong case for this, but since the redirects are not implausible and don't match the criteria for speedy deletion for redirects, I hesitate to speedy them. In all my years on Wikipedia I never touched a WP:RFD so I have very little knowledge of how they like to do things. If you do bring it up on WP:RFD, please let me know how it turns out. --causa sui (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scream (film)
The article Scream (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Scream (film) for things which need to be addressed. GRAPPLE  X  17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has now passed. The dating consistency is still off but on its own that's not going to hold it from being a GA. Surprised it was there so long! Well done with it, definitely take it to FAC in the future, though they will ride you about the citations. GRAPPLE   X  19:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to fix the dating inconsistency, forgot that part when I began edits. Thanks for taking the time to review it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Marlene Griggs-Knope
I respectfully disagree with your proposed deletion of Marlene Griggs-Knope and I've removed the PROD. My reasoning is in the talk page, but as I noted there, feel free to take the article to AFD if you still feel strongly and I will argue my points there as well. No disrespect intended to you personally, obviously. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also just saw that you had proposed several of the other character articles to be merged. I've started a centralized thread on the talk page to discuss this. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Scream292.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Scream292.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Scream FAC
I can go through the Scream's refs and correct the work and publisher names, if you don't mind. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   22:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do because I don't know what is missing. Can you take a look at ref 9?  I think this was brought up in the GAN but I can't see what is wrong with it.  The guy just said it was malformed.  I have to watch all of freaking Scream again with the commentary on plus the documentaries I no longer have to get timecodes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't ref 9 the IMDb one? —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   22:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a DVD reference "es Craven (Director). (December 20, 1996). Scream (film)- Commentary by Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson. [DVD]. United States: Dimension Films." but it uses an IMDB url.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In IE9 and Google Chrome the ref displayed the IMDb URL at the bottom of the ref. I don't know, it does that sometimes when you copy and paste a title, so deleting the title in the ref and writing it manually fixes it. I don't know what causes that..  23:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, I saw the url but didn't realize it was abnormal. Thanks Mike.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)  Now I just need to somehow prove musicfromthemovies is reliable or find a new source that makes about 3 different points.  Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How are you meant to do references from video with time stamps? The guy said I had to do time-references which is going to be a huge pain in the ass with the commentary.  Are you just meant to keep duplicating the same references but with a different timestamp? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Are you just meant to keep duplicating the same references but with a different timestamp?" -- Yes. :-\ —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   00:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a thought - would it be possible to handle the videos as you would books, and use shortened citations for specific timestamps with the full video cited and referred to? Just treat it like you would with different page references to a book, only instead of "Shakespeare, pp.114–122", it could be "Director's commentary, 1h12m". Might be a bit fiddly to write up manually but it would look a lot cleaner. GRAPPLE   X  00:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What would the code for that be? Scream (film) - Commentary by Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson, time.1:14:25 ? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah - though you could shorten it to "Craven; Williamson, 1:14:25", and link it to the citation further down the page by means of a manual anchor in the full citation, though that is quite a bit of work. User:Belovedfreak did a lot of manual anchoring in Beyond the Sea (The X-Files) if you want to see what I mean, though that level of detail is above and beyond what's needed really. Plain text would work just as well, provided it was clear enough as to what you were referring to each time. It would reduce a lot of clutter and repetition as you would only need the full details for the video once. GRAPPLE   X  11:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean
Since you're one of the biggest editors in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, can you take a look at the article? I just nominated for the GA, need it to pass before the 20th. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 04:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, checking the prose or sources (as the WP:FILM assessment discussed) could be enough. And yes, I do hope it passes Criteria 5 despite everyone who drops by and is reverted. (but At World's End passed in July 2007, shortly after release, so it's possible) igordebraga ≠ 14:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How was that edit I did considered vandalism?
I simply deleted a section in the main part that looked like it only belonged in the reception section. Jaybling (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead is there to summarize the contents and the critical reception is part of that. Removing a large chunk of the lead without explanation is something I would consider vandalism.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, so I should have added an explanation. Frankly, the third paragraph in the lead sums up the critical reception well enough along with other contents, so that fourth paragraph doesn't seem necessary. Jaybling (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph doesn't mention anything about the critical reception except for saying it was positive. I've rewritten it a little. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And again, I do sincerely compliment you
...on your very careful edit at The Dark Knight Rises. We may have had a minor difference of opinion, that I think worked out alright, but I want you to know how much I respect your work here. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The feeling is mutual.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)