User talk:Doctor Sunshine/archive1

Welcome
Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:


 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 12:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Banners
There can be more than one project banners on a page. Please do not remove project banners if they are talked about on the page. Cbrown1023 16:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to delete this message. The page that you removed the banner from was Talk:The Lower Depths (1957 film), it was a redirect from Talk:The Lower Depths, don't worry, I undid the redirect.  But you should be careful about that in the future. Cbrown1023 22:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about what happened... it was this morning and now I'm confused... so just disregard my previous messages. Cbrown1023 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Doing a good job


Just dropped by to tell you I saw you out working hard, doing the tasks that others often shun, and I wanted you to know that it is appreciated. If there is anything I can do to be of assistance to you, please let me know. Essjay  ( Talk )  06:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A follow up note on the CC
Hello Cop 633 and Doctor Sunshine. I wanted to touch base with you since some time has gone by and nobody has responded to our last posts on the Wikiproject films page about this subject. First off, I know that you both like these and I suspect that may feel that I have been a pest about this subject. I must apologize because that was not my intention. My first motivation was to try and prevent the bummed out feeling that can happen when one does a ton of work only to have it all deleted. This was based on having had it happen to me and on having seen the Criterion Collection deleted as a category twice before. Knowing how much work was going to go into posting the box on all of the CC's films pages, and wanting to catch it as soon as possible, I had posted a note on the talk page of an administrator who had deleted the category once before on October 24th. There was no response form the person. Then an anonymous user began deleting the boxes and leaving a rather emphatic edit summary about it. That was when you began restoring them, Doctor Sunshine. Knowing that you were working away Cop 633, and suspecting that the reasons that had been given to delete the category before would more than likely be used to, eventually, remove your boxes I then went to the wikiproject films page to try to get some movement on the subject. I had hoped that someone in charge there would contact you, but I realize now that I should have done so from the start so I also apologize for that rudeness. The somewhat slow nature of the filmproject people to this now makes me feel that, if I hadn't brought it up maybe nobody would have and that all I have done is rain on your parade and I just want to say again that was not my intention.

I do appreciate the Criterion Collection's product and have made several postings at IMDb trying to point out that the price of their releases is more that offset by the cost of, and the research to both restore the films AND find all of the extraordinary extras that appear on, their DVD's when compared to most other companies product. To that end I want to further the one of the suggestions that was made at the wikifilm project page about adding a DVD release section to the films in question. I think it would be easy to include a link to the List of Criterion Collection releases when mentioning them, along with ony other comapnies that may have released the film, in the body of that section, thereby leading readers to all of their films and not just the one that comes before and the one after the number on the spine and avoiding the look of pushing their product over others.

One last thing. If, in the proposed new section, you do mention the extras on their discs (and they ARE worth mentioning. I mean have either of you seen the four or five interviews with Truffuat about his film Jules and Jim which were recorded over the space of 15 or 20 years? It is fascinating to watch his appreciation of his own film deepen over time. Also, before I forget it, have you seen the new subtitles on the recent release of Seven Samurai? I have seen this film more than 80 times in my life yet these gave me so much more of the film that it was as though I had never truly experienced it before) I would suggest that you only list two or three of the most important ones, as listing them all may smack of advertising their product again.

As to removing the boxes you have already entered, as nobody else seems to be in a hurry about it I won't interfer. Maybe you could remove them as you finish a DVD paragraph for each film.

Onc last time my apologies for any hurt feelings and keep up the good work that you are both doing here at wikipedia. Thanks for your time and attention and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I also want to thank you for trying to get the THE removed from the Seven Samurai page. It is one of those niggling things and your taking the "bull by the horns" is much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyoshi Kurosawa
Hello again. I saw the note you (briefly) left on my talk page, and I wanted to warn you about a potential problem. In order to use the photo, we have to have permission for anyone to use the photo (including for profit), not just Wikipedia. It's complicated, and if you already know this, then cool, I don't have to repeat the whole thing. If you don't understand, ask me and I'll explain the confusing policy to you. Just make sure that you have permission for anyone to use the image, not just Wikipedia exclusively. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Off project
Hi Doctor Sunshine, glad you are taking part in film project discussions. Was your mention of undemocratic on the issue of defining film importance? I am still trying to find clues, so I would like to give you some examples of how I would assess some films' importance. I am no film critic, have not studied cinema, but wish to do some good gnoming in films and would appreciate your comments.

Top: In Dreams (film) / The Last Temptation of Christ / Cet obscur objet du désir / Being There / The Fisher King (film)

Hi: Kiss of the Spider Woman / The State of Things (film) / Down by Law (film) / The Mouse That Roared / A Fish Called Wanda

Middle: Blood Simple / Zardoz / Tommy (film) / Grumpier Old Men / Clockwise (film)

Hoverfish 21:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, glad to help out. Both importance an class are undemocratic with the exception of Top and FA respectively (and GAs must be nominated). Most project pages say they can be set by any member but really whether or not you add your name to the list they'll be glad to have some assistance. Regarding importance, Top needs to be discussed on the appropriate project page before you assign that but, for film, anything between No and High is fair game. So to take your examples,
 * In Dreams, I haven't seen but it got a 5.2 on the IMDb, won no major awards, and I'm not a big fan of the director, however he's directed some important films so I'd rank it Mid. The rest are all great, important films and are by important directors, so they would get a minimum rank of High. I would even go so far as to say they qualify for Top but you should discuss it at WikiProject Films first.
 * Kiss of the Spider Woman I haven't seen so I'd go to the IMDb again and it has a high rating and won a lot of awards including an Oscar so Mid or High, I've at least heard of it so I'd agree with High. The State of Things I haven't see but it's Wim Wenders so I'd give him a High by default unless it's something terrible like The End of Violence (Mid). Down by Law, most definitely High. Peter Seller's qualifies Mouse and anything as well loved as A Fish Called Wanda qualifies.
 * Blood Simple I would rank High because the Coen brothers are so influential and it's a great film. Zardoz I didn't care for but because it's got a cult following Mid sounds about right. Tommy I liked okay and it's got an even bigger cult following so either Mid or High, I agree with Mid. Grumpier Old Men, yes, Mid. Clockwise I haven't seen but anything with a Python gets at least a Mid as it fills in details.
 * Low is for terrible and marginal films. No importance is for film related templates and categories etc. So as you can see it's a very intuitive and subjective process. If anyone disagrees with you they can always change it or discuss it on the talk page. Not a big deal. I usually try to add any additional project banners, most counties have banners, as do horror films and anime, WWII and Japanese folklore, etc. but importance scales may vary, for example most of Akira Kurosawa's films would be high but in terms of film but on WikiProject Japan (WPJ) most of them are only Mid with the exception of the big stuff. Anyway, you're on the right track. For more information go here, Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria, or you can browse through here, Category:Film articles by importance. Well, I've rambled on long enough. Hope that helps. Doctor Sunshine 01:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it helps me a lot, thanks for your feedback. Hoverfish 07:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I see my goof. I didn't mean In Dreams (you are surely correct about it), but Dreams (film) for Top imortance. Yet I've given even (my) Top films just a High, and suggested in Film Project we start a subpage for Top film discussions. Hoverfish 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains it. No problem, anytime. And that sounds like a good idea, you've got my support. Doctor Sunshine 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kairo / Pulse
If you refer to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films) you will see that there is no established guideline for using an English-release name over the original. See also Talk:Fucking Åmål where there was a clear consensus for using that film's original title. This film wasn't even known as "Pulse" until four years after it's initial release. PC78 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No sense in the two of us moving this article back and forth. I've listed this at Requested moves to (hopefully) find a consensus. PC78 11:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, you're right in that if the foreign language title is more common that should be kept. I suppose for clarity I should have only listed the Use Common Names link, except that it's important to emphasize the common English language title, this being en.wikipedia.org, for example Seven Samurai rarely called Shichinin no samurai but lessee... something like L'avventura doesn't even have a proper English title so it'll obviously remain L'avventura as it should. In the case of Pulse the DVD, reviews and theatrical release were all under Pulse. But I'm fine with vote. Doctor Sunshine 16:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's my point; the film is commonly known as Kairo, certainly it was only known by that name for four years prior to it's US release. And as I've noted elsewhere, the US and UK dvds both use Kairo in parenthesis, as do many of the online reviews I've seen. I don't dispute the other two examples you give. I mentioned Fucking Åmål (released in the US and UK as Show me Love) above; if you'll indulge me, could I have your thoughts regarding the usage of that particular name? PC78 00:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference is it's more commonly known as Pulse in English speaking countries. It may have been known as Kairo before it was widely released in the States but things change. As for Fucking Åmål, personally, I'd assume that's because covering over profanity tastes a bit like censorship which always gets peoples hackles up. Plus, it's a more fun title. Maybe it should be changed too but I'm not on a crusade here. Doctor Sunshine 01:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I only asked since I saw it as a comparable example, no other reason. (Although "because it's more fun" is hardly any kind of justification!) You keep saying that Pulse is the more common name, but you certainly haven't showed me any compelling evidence. It seems we shall have to agree to disagree. :)
 * As a side note, I've moved Pulse (film) to Pulse (2006 film) - hopefully you have no objections there, since there are at least three films by that name. PC78 01:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're unhappy with Fucking Amal, be my guest. Now, did you go to the Rotten Tomatoes link I posted? Did you notice that the formal title on the DVDs you mentioned? If you're free on Tuesday I'll fly you over to the directors house and I'll have him embroider it on a sweater for you. I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of evidence but go check out the original Star Wars films and see if they're listed under the same titles they were for 30 years. Doctor Sunshine 04:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I made it clear that I wasn't arsed about Fucking Amal? You don't have to be on a "crusade", but it would be nice if you could be consistent. Clearly I'm not disputing that the film was released as Pulse in the US - obviously the reviews are going to refer to it by that name. All I am saying is that the original title still has wide usage, which is why I believe we should be using it. Do you dispute that the dvd also uses the name Kairo, as I pointed out to you earlier?
 * As for our trip, I'm afraid it will have to be Wednesday, but if you want to fly me out to Japan to continue this discussion then I shall look forward to it. :)
 * In any case, a decision on this now rests in the hands of others, and I'll be happy with whatever outcome. :) PC78 12:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked me to speculate how that consensus was reached regarding Fucking Amal and I did. If you expect me to singlehandedly fix everything that's wrong on Wikipedia, you're insane. On the Pulse cover, that's called a subtitle. It's where the less common title is relegated. Many DVDs have those, see here. Compare that with the article here. Doctor Sunshine 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've tried to keep this friendly and civil, but I really don't appreciate your tone. Frankly I'd rather you didn't try to "fix" everything that you deem to be "wrong" on Wikipedia. PC78 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too, if I did I'd go insane. If I'm curt it's because we're going in circles. You ignore the policy and evidence I've cited and present none of your own. It's nothing personal, I'm sure you're a swell person and that you're interested enough in Kurosawa's films to debate this with such tenacity speaks well of you. But if you have a valid case, make it, if you don't, that's fine too. Doctor Sunshine 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If it seems like I keep repeating myself, then it's because it seems like you're just not listening to my point of view. I certainly do see this from your angle, and I do agree with some of the thigs you've said. It's just that this film is apparently one of those "rare" (as you said) borderline cases, and we both just happen to be on either side of the divide.
 * With regards to policy, there were no guidelines over the use of foreign language film titles until you wrote them two days ago. (And my concern over that is quite seperate; we certainly don't need to be discussing this film in three different places.)
 * With regards to evidence, I still haven't seen any (and apologies here if I'm just being dumb). What exactly are you citing as evidence? I already commented on those reviews above, and as I pointed out to you many online reviews (at least the ones I've seen) seem to use Pulse/Kairo, Kairo (Pulse) or whatever. You asked me to provide evidence myself, and I have obliged on the film's discussion page. I'm fairly certain you yourself mentioned Google somewhere.
 * As for my interest in Kurosawa's films, it's actually not as great as this debate of ours might suggest, but it's funny what these things turn into somethimes, eh? :) PC78 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this film is known by it's foreign title better than most other films but it's still much better known by it's English title. The policy already existed, as I've stated over there. When you cited that policy I realized it needed to be summarized there to avoid more of these debates in the future. Anyway, this isn't really an opinion issue, it can be settled by cold hard facts. I can walk you through this if you'd like but all you need to know is the following (please try to view these objectively, pretend I'm not here): 1. The English title is twice the size on the DVD cover, just as on books if the author's name is more likely to be recognized they make it bigger than the books title. Here, size matters. 2. The Rotten Tomatoes reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1113170-pulse/) are a collection of English-language reviews from across the Internet. I'm not such which ones you were clicking on but if you go down the Cream of the Crop section – the most respected and reliable of the bunch – you'll see they all favour Pulse. Click as many as you'd like. 3. I'll address at the move discussion. Doctor Sunshine 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Master template
Hello thanks for you ron going support. Let me knwo what you think of this master film template:

Hi, I'm trying to keep all related threads in one place, i.e. the film project talk page. There are already some positive reactions there. Hoverfish 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Conventions for Films
Good job with the write-up! It is detailed, thorough, and explains everything well with great examples. :) Cbrown1023 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, thenk yo. Doctor Sunshine 22:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Country template
Well the box for each country would be a summary of the SUPER actors and characters of each country. E.g the box for the United States would have only a handful of super actors e.g Tom Cruise Julia Roberts  directors Spielberg etc. If you look at my Argentina box all of the actors and characters and films are accessed by the side panel. The feature content on them are intended to be the main names in the cinema of that country. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's just that you'd also have to limit it to contemporary superstars, leaving out silent and golden age superstars etc and even then it could still get pretty huge. I think that sort of information is better relegated to a list format. Film festivals and studios I think would be very helpful though. Doctor Sunshine 23:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Suzuki
I will send you the photocopies next week. A question about the trivia section: do you believe that Suzuki was really voted "Best Dressed Man" by the Tokyo Fashion Society (the Japan Fashion Society, according to my source)? I always thought that was some kind of hoax, by either Suzuki or a biographer. I mean look at the image in the article, or this one, or this one or these. Is that a fashion icon? Skarioffszky 11:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, that occurred to me too. It seems like he's been wearing the same casual wear for the last 50 years (although, he's got a great van dyck). Unless he went wild in the 80s. I hadn't updated the reference yet but in the Branded to Thrill bio it says Japan Fashion Society too. It's compiled by Tony Rayns so I'm tempted to believe it but some sort of confirmation would be nice. I was going to email the Japan Foundation to see if they had any information or pictures that might be of use, they seem to have supplied a lot of stuff to the Cinefiles archive, so maybe they'll be able to provide some conformation on the fashion thing too. If you don't mind me asking, how'd you come by Desert under the Cherry Blossom? Did you attend a retrospective? Doctor Sunshine 08:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

request for comment on Talk:Zigeunerweisen
Hello!. I made a request to rename Zigeunerweisen to Zigeunerweisen_(movie). So, please make some message on that request. Thank you.Penpen0216 13:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. you have already voted to the request. I don't care if the new page name should be Zigeunerweisen_(film) or Zigeunerweisen_(movie). I only think that the link from Sarasate to Zigeunerweisen_(movie) is wrong.(I found this while adding Op.number to ja.Sarasate page.) I am searching which page should link to Zigeunerweisen_(music) and to Zigeunerweisen_(movie). I will report you after end of the searching at talk:Zigeunerweisen.( 47 pages in en.wikipedia is found by GOOGLE. Many of them link to movie but some of them link to music. Working memo is here.) Penpen0216 15:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)