User talk:Erik/Archive 20

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays. Hope all is going well.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You, too! Erik (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox question
Hey Erik. Hope you had a great Christmas. I noticed this edit from you that you de-linked undefined and undefined from the infobox. I thought that was encouraged per Template:Infobox_Film. Has this changed? Thanks -- Mike   Allen   23:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the documentation for the template, it appears that an editor unilaterally made changes to it to link to the appropriate cinema article. It is not appropriate to link to such articles because it violates WP:EGG -- you think you're going to United States when you actually end up at Cinema of the United States.  In addition, in my experience, it's overlinking to link to a country like the United States because it is so general, and it does not help readers much to visit that article.  Similar logic applies to the lead sentence with the year, the nationality, and the basic genre.  It seems fair to say that everyone knows what science fiction films, comedy films, and war films are, etc.  What I've done in lieu of overlinking there is to do a "See also" section like at Fight Club (film).  If you think that this approach or an approach you have in mind needs consensus, feel free to start discussion at WT:FILM or Template talk:Infobox film (the latter with a notification to WT:FILM since not everyone follows the template's talk page). Erik (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm that may be a good idea. Because I thought the guidelines were correct.  EVERY film article I have worked (or working) on I have included the FilmUS etc.  Sometimes it seems like you do, do and do and then it's not right. Sigh. lol    I well bring it up later on tonight. :) --  Mike   Allen   23:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think when templates like FilmUS exist, they tend to catch on for better or worse. I remember when we split "distributor" into "studio" and "distributor", there was someone who made it their job to implement the new field and its attributes in a lot of the articles of major films. Erik (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a quick question. On the film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, since it's not a US film. Do we still use the $ sign for the box office gross/budget, etc? -- Mike   Allen   23:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's best to use the currency based on the nationality of the film, but I think that the best sources of box office figures tend to use American dollars. If the film makes a big splash in the United States, then I think you see figures thrown around more in American dollars.  There's no hard and fast rule for it.  When in doubt, you could try to mention both, like "The film grossed £x (US$1.6xx)." Erik (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See here. :D -- Mike   Allen   00:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Erik!
Re: your changes to The Big Street, when did we stop using FilmUS in the infobox and linking the year of release, film genre, and country of origin in the lead? I don't recall reading any discussion about this. Thanks, and happy holidays! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, it does not appear that discussion ever took place to proliferate the FilmUS template since it particularly violates WP:EGG. In addition, for the lead sentence, WP:OVERLINK says to avoid linking to words not particularly relevant to the topic that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia.  For example, this is why I de-linked comedy film; it's fair to say that most English-language speakers know what a comedy film is.  I left links like screwball comedy in place because it is more likely that they don't know what it is.  As for the year and the country, these are still pretty vague links that will not add specific value for the reader of an individual film article.  One can read something like "...is a 2009 American comedy film..." which does not necessitate further exploration.  Specific names of people and places and topics directly related to the film would be worth exploring further. Erik (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand your rationale re: the film genre, but I think linking the year to the article about films issued within the same year and the country to the article about the country's film industry (rather than the country itself) can be helpful to readers. Also, shouldn't there be some discussion about changing what has been a widely acceptable practice before edits are made? With all due respect - and I think you know I do respect you as an editor/coordinator! - it seems the time you've taken to delink so many articles could have been put to more constructive use. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoying the holidays?
Hey, how's it going? It looks like I'm gone for a few days and you have so much fun that you appear on ANI twice! I've only been able to see some of the details on the occasional check-up on my watchlist on the iPhone. I'm glad to see that you're up to your past contribution levels. Anyway, try and keep the rambunctiousness to a minimum, you don't have to set a record to have the most visits there before the year-end, there's some editors you can't top! Hope you had a great holiday break and enjoy the new year. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I know... I didn't really get back in the game in a good way. I really need to just stick with my personal projects, where I can actually produce results for Wikipedia.  My books and papers are back at my pad, though, so I get caught up in other stuff that really shouldn't matter much for me.  Idle hands, I suppose?  Holidays have been decent; got to love homemade cooking, especially the mountain of cookies.  Doing a bit of reading as well; kind of been on an enrichment path.  How about yourself? Erik (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just got back from seeing the family for the holidays, and the cooking was definitely a main reason for going home. I'd like to get back to working on the next GA/FA, but I would like to wait until I've had Sweeps and/or the Tag & Assess drive done or steadily on its way. In the meantime, I've been working on one of my other side projects&mdash;uploading celebrity images. I've been reading a lot of WWII books recently, I may work on something related to that down the line. I try and alternate between producing a film GA/FA and another topic so I'm not confined to one thing. Of course that's probably not the best practice as a film coordinator... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Rambo
Since the lead says that Rambo is an "American film" wouldn't the reader know that domestic refers to in that country? hbdragon88 (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It could, but "domestic" is still a personal tie for the reader. It is easier just to replace the word "domestic" and dodge confusion altogether. Erik (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, the change was prompted by this discussion. Erik (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cast lists
Hello. I just saw your comment regarding the lack of a cast section in the Fight Club article, and was hoping you could do me a favor. Will you take a look at the cast list in the Goodfellas article and tell me if you agree that it is entirely too long. Most of the characters listed are very minor, and played by little known actors. I argue for a very significant culling of that list. I am very interested in knowing what you think. Thanks. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 15:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol move is coming to a close
Hey there. In any min the move discussion for A Christmas Carol will be closing (less than an hour). Will an Admin be arriving shorty, or do I need to notify one? — Mike   Allen   19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One of them at WP:RM should assess the discussion soon and make the proper move. It may not happen right away, though; it may wind up on the backlog.  It will be addressed ultimately, though! Erik (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There must be a backlog. lol I'm just eager to know what the decision will be. LOL I need a life. —  Mike   Allen   03:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Note
I have responded toward your input at Talk:King_Cobra_(film) and ask that you look in.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ice Queen (film)
Another article about a film that will never be an FA. There is reference in a JoBlo article to the film being written of in Fangoria... any suggestion on how I might find the Fangoria bit? I'd like a nice solid source for the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no direct access to Fangoria, and judging from the JoBlo mention, it may be nothing more than a page listing upcoming straight-to-DVD movies with a snippet of their premises. The periodical's ISSN is 0164-2111, for what it's worth. Erik (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your recent work doing external links cleanup! It's nice to see others work on this task.  Them From  Space  22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not much fun, though! I'll be cleaning up one instance of linkspam, then I find another website that is proliferated all over the place... wish that people wouldn't treat "External links" sections as dumping grounds and actually work on the articles themselves. Erik (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a bit of difference between the sites spoken of at WP:Linkspam and a WP:Reliable Source that offers information not otherwise suitable in an article. Take out the trash certainly, and thank you... but there's no reason to toss out the decent links with the bad.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AllMovie
Erik, with respects, I wish to take issue with your mass removal of Allmovie as in El in so-far nearly a hundred articles. Can you direct me to the discussion where the removal of this specific link was discussed? Because franlky, all I have found so far is the instructions at Template:Infobox film that explain how and where to use it as an EL.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah... in reseacrhing, I see that you asked for its removal last September at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_2 but the consesensus for its continued use was Keep... not delete.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And yes, if the EL section has become a linkfarm, sure... take out the trash. But Allmovie is actually one of the most repectable ELs for a film, and not trash. Not  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, my first barnstar!
Thank you for recognizing my efforts on Thor (film). Also thank you for additional edits you contributed to the article. However I am not familiar with DYK process. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Did you know can explain it; I've gotten DYK recognition as seen here. I am just not 100% sure if Thor (film) would qualify because it has gone back and forth in creation and redirection.  I think you should try, though! Erik (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I may have spoken too quick. It seems, however, that after the AfD in May, the page did not at any point have more than 820 characters of prose, which would make it a valid 5x expansion. decltype (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hubris of WP:ACTOR?
I posted a clear response to this discussion as to why it came about and what it is saying. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw! You knocked that one right out of the park.  I wonder what situation Lampman encountered that caused him to be so "bah humbug". Erik (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Born (film)
I was doing bit of maintenance work on Category:Upcoming films. I came too this article Born (film). The IMDB does not exist. I could not find any new information about this film. Should this article be sent to AFD?. Seeing how the prod which you added was removed last year. Thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, put it up for deletion and cite WP:NFF for the reason. Explain that there was no actual production, and with no produced film, there is no actual plot.  It may be worth putting brief mentions of this failed project on the articles for Clive Barker, Guillermo del Toro, Paul Bettany, and Jennifer Connelly, but that's a judgment call, depending on how important the information is.  Let me know when you put it up for AFD. Erik (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the most recent copy the Internet Archive had about a link at the article. May be worth showing as well. Erik (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Iam not sure when to send it to afd. Iam cleaning up Category:Upcoming films. There is a lots of 2008 and 2009 released films which has upcoming film category. There is loads of articles which has no links. What should i do with those. Althrough i kept all of them on watchlist to find the source later. I mostly only edit video gaming article. So i would not know where to find RS for film article. Could you help with it?. Thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to be intrusive, but about the Category:Upcoming films, I just went through and removed all films that don't belong there. — Mike   Allen   23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins
Hey, as you may know, this FA article is on the front page today. Apparently several British anonymous users are taking issue with its being listed as an American film in the lead and infobox. Since you made the initial edit to note its being American in the lead, (which I feel is quite correct) could you drop by the talk page and help me explain the reasoning to the discenting IPs? Talk:Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins. Thanks, -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re
That's tricky. Maybe make the move request and let the general public comment on suggestions? I could see "Waz" (how it is written on the movie's site), "W delta Z" (how IMDb write it), or maybe just using the US name (which doesn't use a symbol).  TJ   Spyke   19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

All films = Propaganda films!
Yes, all of them... :) Böri (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "the discussion should be discontinued" : Because you don't want to listen these things... Böri (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory
I ask you not to humor Böri at Talk:Conspiracy Theory (film) any further and suggest that you remove your most recent comment. There is zero likelihood of any article-building discussion. The editor does not need an audience. Erik (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern, Erik. However, I won't be removing my recent comment because I think, based on past experience, that taking the time to reason with cranks on talk pages can sometimes discourage them from editing and vandalizing actual articles. That being said, I have posted my last comment since I do have better things to do at the moment. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Erik,

Thank you for going through the GA articles and making amendments, and I really am grateful that a valued editor like yourself contributes to ensuring that all budding articles are polished.

However, why can't the pictures, which represent something significant in a film be kept? and why can't the cast section be enboldened to make it stand out, especially in cases such as Aayirathil Oruvan]].

Examples of images in FAs:
 * File:Mummymovie1.jpg
 * File:JurassicParkcast.jpg
 * File:Changeling closing sequence.png

Please note, I just want this for clarification, to see hwy images should be deleted and definitely not to insult your intelligence.

Regards, Universal Hero (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The first two should not belong, IMO, for the same reason as the images I removed. They are living people, and unless there is critical commentary to signify the shot such as their clothes or the scene in question, non-free images should not be used.  File:Changeling closing sequence.png is one of the best examples of a screenshot that works; it has a very, very strong fair use rationale at Changeling (film).  Steve created that, and you can see another screenshot at American Beauty (film).  He also did a collage of free images to show the actors... do you think you could do that? Erik (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anniversaries
That's great! At the conclusion of the drive, I'd like to get a collaboration department (re)started. I think that instead of everyone suggesting new ideas for working, that we already have a pool of articles to go off of (such as our core articles and anniversary ones such as this). I was planning on doing Dr. Strangelove down the line, so I'd probably want to start it in 2012-3 to ensure that is was FA quality by 2014 (that's what I call long-term planning!). I did remember you previously suggesting that we clean up our older FAs, but I didn't recall comparing the revisions. That's sounds like a good idea, and would definitely help in weeding out false statements and overlooked vandalism. I'm guessing that there are not going to be too many people eager to clean these articles up, but it is something that has to be done. We're losing our older FAs quite a bit, and if we plan to reach any sort of milestone goal, we need to hold onto these other ones (especially our core articles). I'd like to hear if any of the other coordinators have any plans as well, but I think using your list for a collaboration department will be a good idea. Since we are getting some people willing to participate in the Tag & Assess drive, I think that a contest department could also work, where we complete specific goals in quarterly/half-year/full-year installments. That could be a great way to push for higher amounts of GAs or for ensuring that all articles above a certain class have alt text, meet image requirements, etc. I think we're also going to need to push for expanded membership to increase participation. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Esoteric film sound question
Ciao, Erik. An editor has brought up a concern in the Mystery Train (film) FAC you commented in about how the sound setting of the DVD is described. I've listed it as "Dolby Digital surround sound 5.1/2" based on the allmovie profile but it's been pointed out that this does not make much sense to the reader. Do you know how this might be explainable in simpler terms or how I might find out how best to deal with it? Cheers,  Skomorokh   01:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pretty positive that 5.1/2 means 5.1 and 5.2. Can't really do fractions after the decimal! :)  If you want to define it further, you could probably link to surround sound, which isn't a pretty article but still covers the subject.  When are ya gonna put in the Bright Lights essay?  I'd likely lend my support once it's done. Erik (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

end credits legion 1997
Hi

I have just replied on the Legion (1997 film) page

The end credits state 1997

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:SecretLife
Comments on Template talk:SecretLife over the use of actors in a navigation box would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you muchly...
It was driving me nuts. Next time I'll do what I've done before: copy the references to a document page, where they can by seen by themselves. Thank you again, Shir-El   too  20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC) PS My mentor is on a Wiki Break: may I call on you regularly for help? I'm a good editor but a tyro at research, and I learn better from doing, not reading about it. How say you? Cheers!

Milos Forman
Nice patronizing with the standard "Welcome to" template: I'm an editor here since 2005. And the Forman article needs to indicate that two of his films were groundbreaking. Try to improve stuff, not delete. Excuse me, Erik. Gregorik (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about templating you! I rushed a little bit.  I have reverted myself at the article and started discussion on the talk page. Erik (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

List of accolades received by...
I noticed that the film awards lists were just moved to fit the format of the above. I have no beef with it, but would prefer consistency; we have lists such as List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille and List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E that still reflect the old format. Should these be moved also? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do! Thanks, Erik (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved those and several others at Category:Lists of awards by film that needed to be fixed. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with the 'Hill' references again, please!
I do not know WHAT I'm doing wrong. Could you please fix it and show me so I don't do it again? I also have to chase down a reference that got lost in the edits. BTW, when editing text, why would the program scroll the page to an entirely different paragraph? It happened several times, first just jumping a line, then jumping paragraphs. Cheers! Shir-El  too  17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed it for you. I recommend reading WP:REFNAME to understand how to use a reference multiple times. Erik (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU!!! I did read the messages at the "tag cut-offs", which is how I fixed as many as I could. Will read the instructions as soon as I've finished "Awards". Really appreciate it. Cheers! Shir-El   too  17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: I've added a section for YouTube links to his works. Would it be more appropriate to put the links in the Notes section of the Filmography? Thank you, Shir-El   too  20:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should not include YouTube links to copyrighted works (or parts of it) per WP:ELNEVER. They should be removed.  You are better off finding footage to studios' websites to link to, or wherever a trailer is legally hosted. Erik (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Studio article name
Hi Erik. I've been piecing together info for articles on the major Japanese pink film studios for a while, and will probably start them eventually... One qestion that's been on my mind though-- The oldest, and still one of the major pink studios is called "Shintōhō". It's not THAT Shintōhō, but (I don't have my info in front of me now)-- there is a relationship-- I think the founder of the old Shintōhō started the current one after the first one went bankrupt... Anyway. What to call the Pink Shintōhō? Shintōhō (pink film studio)? Shintōhō (2nd)? Shintōhō (the one that makes the dirty movies, not Super Giant? Is there a standard way to name articles on studios with the same name? Dekkappai (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming that Shintōhō will be the primary topic, I think Shintōhō (pink film studio) will work. I have not seen disambiguated studio articles; it probably does not happen often enough for there to be any real precedent.  I'd endorse "(pink film studio)" and have a hatnote at the primary topic. Erik (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, I'll go with that. I see the Japanese Wiki uses "新東宝" (Shintōhō) for the first and 新東宝映画 (Shintōhō Eiga-- "Shintōhō Pictures") for the pink film studio. But I don't think that would make sense for English readers (not sure it does for Japanese readers either...) Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Resources
If you're going to need any, let me know. I'm currently using my brother's database and he's in school for another two years. After that, we're going to need to recruit some more college students. Or start a member fund to purchase access. I think the membership is more likely... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer! I appreciate it.  It's not a good wiki-day for me... no longer able to access resources on a whim.  I'm flitty enough with my contributions as it is.  I would have to be pretty focused on a particular film to reach out for resources, and my general wiki-focus is on the wane these days. Erik (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Images on user page
That sucks, how do I know which ones are free? I thought images on Wikipedia commons could be used for Wikipedia in general, and that user pages didn't have restrictions for content. Or can I use images uploaded on Flirk instead? Stratogustav (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Click on an image to see the image description page. If the licensing says that it is non-free, you cannot use it on your user page.  For example, the religious images you had are public domain, so you can display these.  The album covers are not permissible to display. Erik (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dates, James Hill article:
the movie dates given in British sources are mostly one year earlier than the dates given at the IMDb. On the assumption that this implies different release years in each country, I used the UK dates. It may be a problem down the road with links like Every Day's a Holiday (1965 film), which I had down as 1964, and in future edits. Is there a policy on it? Cheers! Shir-El  too  00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDb may not be updated, so it is best to use other sources to verify the release years. You said you had Every Day's a Holiday down as 1964.  Did this come from another source?  The release year that we use is the year of its first public release.  Also, you should italicize all film titles. :) Erik (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't remember offhand, but it was either his obituary in "The Independent" or the British Film Institute entry, which were the main sources. Try as I might, could find no personal information on the internet whatsoever. Will (hopefully) remember when to use italics. ;) Thank you, Shir-El   too  18:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have time
I wouldn't want to draw your precious time away from your own pet projects, but if you have the time, energy and will I'm sure Star Trek III: The Search for Spock could benefit from any comments at FAC you could provide :). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism.
Erik, I never called what he was doing vandalism that I can see. I thought I stayed pretty cool through the whole thing. Also two articles with bad references is still no justification for removing those links from over 15 articles. That and his edit summary "removed spam links". I assumed good faith on the three articles that I caught in my watchlist and left an edit summary of "No, they are reliable". That was before I seen the full list of what he was doing. That's when I quit assuming and start getting real. He still never said what was wrong with the other refs, that he thought he was doing WP a favor by removing. — Mike   Allen   23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Interpretations of Psycho


The article Interpretations of Psycho has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article gives only one academic interpretation, which could easily be summarized in the main article, Psycho (1960 film).

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposed deletion is the wrong approach. The appropriate approach is to request a merge.  I've already merged the content back to the main article. Erik (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cole Smithey
You may want to have your say at Articles for deletion/Cole Smithey. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Citizen Kane
I've expanded the Citizen Kane article today, including several pieces from your Draft on it. Much appreciated if you could have a look at it and copy edit where necessary or suggest areas for improvement. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Erik. I know we're often... usually?... on the opposite sides of discussions, so I just wanted to thank you for that little show of moral support during my recent template trials. Took a little work but they were all saved and pink film fans now have about 2 dozen new film articles to enjoy, stubs though some may be. All's well that ends well :-) Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we were bound to agree on something. :) Glad you persevered with article creation, and hope you can get back to the project that the mass TfD took you away from.  Regards as well. Erik (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you asked! It's an absurdly ambitious project involving listing the output from the major pink studios-- along the lines of List of Nikkatsu Roman Porno films. I'm doing it to help organize/catalogue my poster image collection for now, but the template deletion thing showed me how useful this listing is going to be for article-creation: for sorting out the higher-profile films which can support articles, and for locating the posters & info. You can get a glimpse of the madness here... And this is all leading to articles on each of the studios-- which is way overdue... Anyway, I'll be busy ;) Dekkappai (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Shutter Island question
I figured someone would delete that section eventually for that very reason but left it to more experienced editors to make the call. If and when other sources are actually talking about that sort of thing, would it be appropriate to add it back in with references (and keep it way way shorter than it started out, jeebus)? I can't recall seeing anything on similar twisty movies but I kind of like the idea of it, if references ever turn up. Millahnna (mouse) talk  22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not seen the film so I am trying to avoid spoiling myself before I see it! I am not sure if such a section can really exist in a film article, but details could be dispersed throughout the article body.  Fight Club's old revision included a "Clues about Durden's identity" section, but none of it was recoverable.  This film could be different, but I can't say for sure, since I have not read very much press about it.  If there is widespread interest in talking about clues in the film, then reliable sources could help build passages about it, much like people comparing the Harry Potter film adaptations to the books.  If there is not, it's best to weave details of clues throughout the article body. Erik (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Groovy thanks. An IP editor added the section originally and I could see some merit but wasn't sure if it would stand at the moment.  Some of the clues could be woven back into the plot summary I think.  Since I wrote the bloody thing I'll see what I can do about that.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Take it easy on clues, I suggest. Plot summaries are supposed to give readers an idea of the film so the rest of the article makes sense.  Hence, it is supposed to be pretty basic in laying out story.  I think some editors are interested in only having really short summaries, but there's a big tradition of prolific plot-editing to overcome.  The key thing to remember is that we're not supposed to be so investigative with a mere summary.  We leave it to others to do the investigating (like at Mulholland Drive) and cite these reliable sources in other parts of the article. Erik (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes sense and, if I'm interpreting correctly, ties in with how I've been approaching summaries so far. I don't need them to be super short, just concise and thorough. I reworked the summary for The Uninvited which also had a twist ending.  I left in a few critical plot clues but glossed over a massive amount of them.  If you've seen that movie or don't care about being spoiled, check it out and let me know if I'm off base.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for resigning
It's time for you to step aside. You're a detriment to the project and you can't handle the responsibility that was given you. Your understanding of the requirements of Wikipedia are beyond you at this time. Thank you for resigning promptly and gracefully. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * MOS:BOLD, definition lists. Enjoy the Oscars! :) Erik (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting description words on this page here. Even though it appears you are a "detriment", congrats on helping to get American Beauty up to FA. You and Steve (and others of course), did a superb job developing that article, and it's good to see that the quality of the project's FAs just gets better and better. Which, of course, makes me less and less eager to fix all of the older ones... I didn't agree with all of the Academy Award winners this year, but I was only really interested in supporting actor and best actress, and both went the way I thought it would, so a good night! Anyway, congrats again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's All About Steve, really. [rimshot] (I love how Ms. Bullock won for both ends of the spectrum.)  Yes, RC and I clearly are butting heads... we should probably have a light conversation sometime and realize that the other editor is a person, too. :)  I didn't realize I was channeling the voice of a coordinator despite stepping down last November... in any case, my personal project will be Dark City (1998 film) (just loaded it with some Cinefantastique details), but I definitely want to start on collaborating on a Core-class article for an anniversary. Erik (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had Dark City in my Blockbuster queue for a while, but it's delayed (probably because I keep requesting the Blu-ray). I'm currently working on a WWII article offline in between completely finishing Sweeps. I'll hopefully at least get that to GA, and then off to focusing on the cleanup of the older film articles. I'm probably going to cap out at finishing just a few more of the T&A drive ranges and push the remaining editors to at least get all of the Start/Unassessed articles done. I'm okay with not getting all of the Stubs reassessed, but at times, it would be great to see better collaboration with members. Hopefully that increases for core article collaborations. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Revengers (film)

 * It was just a little clean-up duty since the outcome of the AfD looks to be to keep. :) More editors need to do Google fu on a topic before going to AfD.  Lots of people do Google News, but I think Google Books is something that's not always considered.  Happy editing! Erik (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for a character article
Hi Erik-- In lieu of the Oscars, I watched this peerless classic of American cinema with my son last night. And now, poking around for info on it, I come across this you might want to put in the film project's arsenal for future use (once the great bolding controversy gets sorted out ;): One more source and good ol' Mose could support an article-- Maybe not all character articles need be based on Pokemon... :-) Dekkappai (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * COLE, David L.: "Mose Harper: eccentricity and survival in The Searchers" Literature/Film Quarterly (0090-4260) v.28 n.3, November 2000, p.222-226, English


 * Nice find! I put it on the film article's talk page.  I'd love to work on The Searchers (film), but it is definitely a beast. Erik (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just in case
Per this comment; just in case you decided to remove the Lion King link from Elton John's navigation template later ... he wrote "Circle of Life", "I Just Can't Wait to Be King", "Be Prepared", "Hakuna Matata" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" from the film. A massive oversight on the IMDb's part, especially considering that "Circle of Life" won the Oscar for Best Original Song, beating out ... "Hakuna Matata" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" :-) Steve  T • C 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything at Elton John that links to films for which he has written and/or performed songs (he has done so for films other than The Lion King). I think that the film was linked in the "Musical" row as a matter of convenience, and it should really only link to the musical The Lion King.  There is no precedent for musicians or composers to have their templates in the footer.  What do you think? Erik (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I mind navigation templates as much as others do, especially if they're rolled together in one collapsible, as they are at The Lion King. That's not to say we should be dumping them indiscriminately; there should still be a certain level of relevance. But if the Elton John template were to, say, include a category showing all the other films he's provided songs for, then I think that crosses the line into usefulness. Whereas if the consensus at that template is not to include them (I don't know how many there are), then the entry should be removed and the template taken out of the article. For the others templates, I broadly agree with you. Steve  T • C 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bold formatting
> I tried to start discussion at WT:MOSBOLD here

Good.

> there is no creative way to go about resolving [the situation at WT:MOSFILM]].

There are always creatives ways to do things.

> ''The formatting usually pops up when we mix lists and prose ... Apt Pupil (film)

That example is awful. Please change it so each entry fits on a single line, even when the width of the text area (including the width of the inset box) is 15 words. Another possibility would be to put full, linked actor names in the plot summary and remove actor names completely from the cast section. Then you could list the character name in bold when there's some descriptive text, and not mention it at all if there's not. That would make the parallel with definition lists even closer.

&mdash;Codrdan (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are referring to about "each entry" fitting on a single line. Merging actors' names into the plot summary is not possible to accomplish because the summary will not mention every character.  I'm not going to do any bold formatting here because we're not dealing with definition lists. Erik (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The filmography tables
That extra code is just hardcoded cruft. If you compare the two, there is no difference. It's better to remove it for compability (which is why the tool is set to do so). Nymf hideliho! 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an RfC taking place at WT:ACTOR about font size in filmography tables. Jack Merridew has edited articles during the discussion, saying only "filling in # references" when he is changing the coding in midst of the discussion.  That's why I am reverting the table coding that were not explained through the edit summaries. Erik (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the discussion. These edits has nothing to do with font sizes though. They are completely valid edits. Nymf hideliho! 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack is editing the font sizes in the course of the RfC. The other edits he made are valid, which is why I was surgical about restoring the table coding until conclusion of the discussion.  I prefer 100% myself but do not see a need to rock the boat in making such changes during the RfC. Erik (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean now. I changed just the font sizes back. Erik (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And I see what you meant now, too. :-) I completely missed that he changed font sizes. About the discussion, I believe I prefer the 100% standard version as well. Hopefully it will make for less edit warring and a cleaner Wikipedia. Nymf hideliho! 02:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Most of the code changes were done by the reflinks tool as 'common fixes'; for example, this restore by Nymf was first made by reflinks which also produced the edit summary. In that diff the removed background is pure syntax error and the other stuff is mere clutter with no effect. I did change some 90% to 95% as that's what their formats says to do (and has for the last 9 months). Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not to 100%? Baby steps? :) Erik (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm for 100%. I figured that if I go that boldly, I'll get reverted. The 'common fixes' (which are done automatically by a lot of bots and tools) did almost all of this change. You should try the tool on some other filmographies. I did cut a few bits of centering code that is superfluous due to heading cells getting centered by site css (per wikitable). Being explicit is just debris. I've decades of experience with GUI design, for web sites, desktop apps, industrial control systems... Anyway, I'll not fuss of the articles you've reverted me on ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing credits
It's here, "writer" section. Forgive me, I thought a consensus had been reached in the matter and that the parameters reflected this. Shall we keep them for now?–FunkyVoltron talk 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, I think that's a good as any way of displaying writers, so let's stick with it unless someone opposes it?–FunkyVoltron talk 15:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

GAR The Haunting in Connecticut

 * Thanks for your assessment and input. I really needed a good review, and I'll be getting to work on making the improvements you suggested as soon as I can. bwmcmaste (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

New Yorker
Cheers Erik. Thanks for that. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Transformers 3
Hi. I just wanted to note that it would have been REAL nice of you to check whether any worth-keeping changes had been made to the information about Transformers 3 after it was transplanted from the Revenge of the Fallen article, which actually had. Also, IMO the article had been perfectly fine up to this point when fanboys dropped in and turned into their playground, and I really didn't see the benefit in dropping a not-too-bad article in favor of a sloppily-written section just because we're two months (tops) from the film starting to shoot, but there you go. --uKER (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies! I thought it was basically a copy-and-paste of the section into a new article and reverted it accordingly.  Did you fix the merge?  Anyway, a lot can happen in two months; for example, the writers' strike led to a lot of projects being canned.  I think common sense applies more realistically when filming is going to start in two days.  If filming does start, the article will exist forever, so there is no great rush.  In addition, is there any way for the sequel information to be at Transformers (film series)?  We do that for Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV. Erik (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, it was not a c&p. Over the course of three days I had tried to get that section (which was just a mashup of statements thrown there in the order that they were published) into something that could be called an article. I cited starting and end point in my previous message here. I did fix the section again, trying to go back once again from article structure to just a section, restoring in the proces stuff that the fanboys had dropped. You can see that here. About the movie being bound to have delays, I do agree on that, but I don't see how that could change the fate of the article. I'd say the point for the creation of the article should be changed to the film entering preproduction, since that's when most of the information starts getting out. Especially in movies like this where there's hordes of craving people making news out of every bit of information that leaks out. About the information being moved to the article on the series, I hate that article since it seems run by the same fanboys that destroyed the article I tried to make, by filling it with ridiculous bulleted lists, tables, and their fantasies citing sources that don't back them. --uKER (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted myself. How about this—if there is trouble with production starting, such as filming being pushed back, we'll discussing merging back to Revenge of the Fallen or the film series article. Erik (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add that even if it got cancelled, there's this, but anyway. --uKER (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual for films to be canceled; I think that category tends to focus on canceled films in retrospect, which is more indicative of historical significance. The trouble with keeping recent canceled films in their own article is that it's not really a film article, yet it tries to be without any actual product on hand.  Anyway, we'll keep an eye on this. Erik (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure will. BTW, now that the article is restored, I'll have to propagate yet again the improvements I made since yesterday. :) No worries though. --uKER (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, now that I'm home I again took the time to bring the Transformers 3 article back into shape. I'd say this is about as good as the article can get for the time being. BTW, I just requested semiprotection until May to avoid the fanboys dropping in again. --uKER (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can help by interceding here. --uKER (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's not much you can do once it's declined. I'll watchlist the page and help combat the vandalism. Erik (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Question
I noticed you made a request here, so why is another editor allowed to continue unchallenged as in this edit and apparently other such edits while the discussion continues? Call me confused;) - Josette (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask her to desist for the duration of the discussion, then. Erik (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You were the one that had an issue. I just noticed your discrepancy. - Josette (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice it before, and I messaged her about it. Happy editing! Erik (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So I guess I was wrong, there is no discrepancy. Happy editing to you too. - Josette (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Leto
I used the same format that Jack Merridew was inserting into articles, with his wrinkles about the code removed. I went to that page to ascertain what films he was in that were of greatest consequence and noticed a messy table and inconsequential content, like what films his brother was in and other tidbits that should rightly be in the article body but not the table, and removed the "fact tag" from the section. We don't source filmography tables. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're aware that I'm advocating a different format and oppose hard-coded markup in articles. Jack Merridew 19:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can all parties involved hold off on filmographies until the RfC is concluded? Take the opportunity to add content elsewhere in actors' and filmmakers' articles.  Just have a little patience. Erik (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've avoided thrashing the contentious bits since your note a few days ago. I've also just posted this:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
 * as a possible way to decouple several issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaws
Thanks for the list of references, I'll try and incorporate some of them. That's awesome that you got access to the LoC, suddenly my university and local libraries just don't seem that impressive. I'm not too knowledgeable on the available sources on this, but whatever you can get would be great. I wouldn't say this is a favorite film or anything, but I'm just tired of losing our FAs. Fortunately, this one shouldn't take too much effort to improve compared to prior delists. This article would definitely benefit from additional book sources, so we'll use whatever you can find, and then I'll try to sweep my local library after that. Two of the three book titles you listed are available at the SDSU library, so I may swing over there in the next few days. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a few book sources through Google Scholar and incorporated them into the article, replacing many of the weaker websites. You might want to take a look at which books I used to save you time if you go to the library. I've started a stub interpretations section which will be fleshed out (several of the books had multiple interpretations from a variety of viewpoints, so it will be challenging to try and bring them together). Are you interested in including a video or audio clip with the article (probably for inclusion in either/both the Inspirations and influences/interpretations and Music sections)? They could potentially make for great examples to include in the multimedia department. If so, I'll need to go rent the film to make a clip of the appropriate segment. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were some limitations on the books as a few pages here and there are skipped over. The Jaws Log seems like a great source, but only the first 50 pages are available. While I wouldn't say that the article is too easy to restore to its former glory (although we're actually going beyond its high point), the article still has a better start to it compared to some of the other older film FAs. Basically, we don't have to start from scratch, but there definitely is a lot of areas that need to be improved. I think I also need to see the film again, haven't seen it for at least five years. If the interpretations section can be significantly expanded, we may be able to find a clip for that. Otherwise, we could at least use a sample of the score for the music section. I'll also divide up the sources better later on, I was just getting as much information and new sources into the article last night as I could. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I was hoping to overcome the FAR, but it looks like there are definitely a lot of additional sources that could be used to improve the article. This could be a prime candidate for a COTW if we get that started at some point. I guess we can put it on the back burner, let it drop from FA, and go back at another point. We can at least immediately get it up to GA status in its current state though. Before looking at this article, I started a basic list of our FA/GAs with checklists to go over each of their prose, citations, and alt text. It would be helpful to go over all of these so that we have revisions to go off of annually (or it could be helpful reference points if flagged revisions ever goes into effect). Once I finish fine-tuning it, I'll move it to project space so others can assist with whichever articles and tasks they wish. After we've cleaned these articles up, we can then pursue returning some of the former FA/GAs to their higher classes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the introduction of the cleanup listing and see if anything else should be added or clarified. Is there other criteria we should be looking at or should it be broken up more into simpler tasks? Although this may take months to complete, after that, we should have the stable comparison revisions needed for annual reviews to then be completed in just a few weeks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just about to go out the door, but I'll move over the cleanup listing to project space later tonight. I was mainly cleaning up some of the newer FAs just so that we would have examples to go off of if others were interested in helping out with the cleanup. Knocking out the easy ones will be helpful for editors, and then let us focus on tackling the articles that need the most cleanup. I just finished my WWII article and have to sit by for the two-month waiting period, so I'd be happy to work on Casablanca (I still need to see Sunset Boulevard before I can make an attempt at helping out with that article). I probably don't have too much time over the next few days, but when I do, I'll start on Casablanca. I'll see if my local library has some of the sources as well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RfA
I am very impressed with your comment at MQS' RfA, Erik. Once again, though we have disagreed many times, I've always found you reasonable (even when wrong ;) Hope I've never implied otherwise. Best regards. Dekkappai (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) I just had to say something with the RfA getting out of control... Erik (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've got to second Dekkappai's statement. Remind me to save the link for the day we manage to convince you to run. Steve  T • C 21:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Erik, If you ever decide to run for Admin, you have my vote. --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Erik can't wait to go through the process MQS has just experienced... Dekkappai (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [grin] You all have to convince me yet. I do just fine without the mop. Erik (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

re:Advice
Well I don't believe being an inclusiontist (the term is documented on the meta:Wiki) is a bad thing, until it reaches the "must save all articles" mentality, which admins must NOT have (they should be neutral). I seen he was up for admin and I remembered my encounter with him and how he perceived the notability guidelines. I wanted to add that to the discussion for anyone interested and I respect that you try to keep everyone civil and in check, but please quit telling me what kind of faith I assume, this has nothing to do with any faith, it was just my opinion. This reminds me what I came to Wikipedia to do, edit articles, not get involved in all those type discussions. Thank you for the reminder. :-) —  Mike   Allen   02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fight Club
Fight Club is an german thriller film see IMDB or. Greetz (Zombie433 talk) 13:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:ACTOR
What did I say that was incivil? I pointed out that he claims a greater number against than exists and that he declared that color would not be used, his opinion alone against 5 who were speaking for it and said he can't declare that anything will not persist. He doesn't have the final word on anything. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not have the authority to declare that anything will not persist." Whether or not that may be true, it could be better worded to be inclusive and not sound adversarial. Erik (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You should see what he's posting on talk pages. He doesn't have that authority and he's being challenged on it variously. Not to mention jumping in on an AN thread claiming he's being mentioned when it had nothing whatsoever to do with him and posting about the WT:ACTOR thread there, bringing up my history despite his own and saying I'm posting aspersions on him when he was not even mentioned. This is quite frustrating and downright maddening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is becoming about you and him instead of your debating points compared to his own. Other editors need to get involved in the RfC because if it is mainly you two debating, there is not going to be an workable outcome. Erik (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And his going to Talk:Miley Cyrus and announcing that color table headings will not persist discourages 5 editors from coming to WT:ACTOR to render an opinion, because his pronouncement was presented like the law. And for the rest, see how someone wants to insert himself into things that are none of his concern and certainly are in no way civil bottom post and pushing things best let lie. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's been three weeks of circular talk and I've suggested that the discussion be wrapped up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good luck with it. I've said what I had to say and do not have anything further to add. Erik (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Avengers (film series)
Fandraltastic has created a great sandbox for this article. In your opinion at what point will this article meet notablilty requirements? Not that it is ready now but just wondering. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the article needs to verify that Marvel Studios intends to bring these multiple films together. No one is really calling all these films part of a "film series"; it is more of a business plan to ensure that films in the Marvel Universe are linked together so these links are advantageous later. Erik (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would say that they are a part of the same "film universe"? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's tough to say what the best way to group them is. If Marvel Studios ever gets to make The Avengers, which is never a guarantee, then an article like this could identify and discuss all the films that got to the big one.  I think it would be better to provide this kind of information at Marvel Studios for now.  It would be better to talk about a "film series" article later.  I'm not sure if "film universe" is any more helpful. Erik (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What if the focus of the article was shifted away from The Avengers and spread more evenly across the involved films? Maybe something like "Marvel Studios film universe"? Again I'm in no rush here just wondering. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was reading Marvel Studios; is "Marvel Cinematic Universe" an actual term that's used? It may be okay, but I would start discussion if you want to make that kind of move.  Like I said before, it would help if the page talked about how Marvel Studios is trying to bring all the films together, such as having Samuel L. Jackson cameo as Nick Fury in the films. Erik (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Its not but there are a lot sources explaining (well reporting anyway) how the films cross-over. It seems that "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is what they are trying to establish similar to the Marvel Universe in comics. Upon more thinking "Marvel Cinematic Universe" might be a better fit than The Avengers (film series) because while the films are related they arent direct sequels as in the Marvel Universe. That would also leave The Avengers  (film series) open to direct sequeals, Avengers 2, 3, etc. I'll talk with Fandraltastic about possible change in focus. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry!

 * hey, sorry if my words sounded rude. I was just surprised... Cheers! &bull; Ling.Nut 13:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's fine... I just thought it was a happy coincidence. I had not seen it on other editors' user pages before. Erik (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just changed mine ;-) Cheers! &bull; Ling.Nut 13:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed this the other day, I thought that there was some sort of secret club being developed here... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, had to disappear for an hour or so; thanks for picking up the slack. :-) I should be around most of the evening after tea. (That's tea, not tea. :p ) Steve  T • C 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem; got to love the occasional dispute about the plot being uncited. Do you think we should consider just slapping on simple references?  It's a little tiresome to see this come up again and again. Erik (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It shouldn't really be necessary. However, a hidden comment might do the trick; I'll stick one in shortly. Steve  T • C 17:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am just thinking that even with a hidden comment, we have to keep explaining the precedent. I'm not looking to require them everywhere now, but if someone complains that there's no inline citations, we can write up very simple hello!-it's-the-film-we're-describing references.  It would extinguish the stink that keeps being raised every so often. Erik (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird reference notation
Hi! I haven't come across the weird stuff in match cut before either, but it seems to be supported by Wikipedia. These two paragraphs still have no citations, so that is why I left the notation in. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up; I replaced them with cn tags because I think they are more familiar to all. Gray underlines do not really say anything about the problem. Erik (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD deletion proposal on Transformers 3
You may want to take a look at this. --uKER (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Alex Tse
Good job getting a response back, that's the hardest part. You can tell the author that we just need her permission to release the image under one of the compatible licenses. I usually recommend that they reply back "I agree to release [image name] under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 or the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0." (the author can choose whichever of the two licenses they prefer). OTRS actually prefers that the author just change the license on the Flickr page itself, so if you can convince her to do that, the permission wouldn't have to be forwarded to OTRS, you'd just need to add the template to the image's page. You can also tell her that the image would be used for including on Tse's page, as well as possibly others. Since it would be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, other language Wikipedias would be able to use it also on a variety of pages while crediting her. Let me know if you want further clarification, and I'll get back to you later tonight. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 14:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you have the proper license, you should upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. You can copy the formatting from this revision and update the dates and information. You can upload the full image or you can crop it, that's up to you. Another user may come along later and add the full image or crop it or alter it in another way. Since it is licensed under a free license, this is acceptable as long as credit is still given to the author. The reason you didn't receive the newsletter is that your name is not featured on the Active participants list (although you are more active than 90% of the people on there...). Feel free to return to WP:FILMS, and you will get 12 issues of the newsletter for just $19.9-no, never mind, it's free. By the way, I stumbled across this BBC article for Psycho if you want to use that. I plan to return to the journal articles of Casablanca this next week, I got a three-day weekend to visit family so not too much time available right now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice, it's great to get images of people who work behind the films. The majority of my images are actor/actresses instead of directors/producers/writers, but that could be because I search more for those in front of the camera due to their abundance in search results. It would be great if Tse was holding a screenplay instead of a drink though! However, it's better than some of my first attempts (such as this, this, this, or this) Good work, and keep at it, there are so many articles still needing new and better images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Vamps(movie)
I am aware of and appreciate your concerns at the AFD. But in further expansion and sourcing, I am finding that what might have been considered simply an "upcoming Heckerling project" a few months ago, is now receiving media attention and coverage because of the "names" now confirmed as starring on the project... Sigourney Weaver ... Krysten Ritter ... Alicia Silverstone ... thus moving coverage away from Heckerling alone. With production asserted to begin a few weeks, and in considering that the current one-sentence mention in the Heckerling article is incorrect in its stating she "directed" rather than the correct "will direct", might you consider incubation rather than a redirect?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's multiple ways to go about it, really. First, I am not sure about incubation because there is a strong likelihood that production will begin after all, and I didn't want to move details out of the mainspace.  It seems better to do a merge and then undo it later when the time comes.  Heckerling seems to be the creative "boss" for the project, so in a hypothetical situation where the film does not enter production, the brief coverage seems best placed there.  (Kind of like Neil Marshall's planned films.)  So I do mean merge and not redirect. Erik (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Merge. My mis-read. Still though... and if you don't feel incubation would serve for something so imminent... maybe we can encourage Pumpkinhead to userefy for a few weeks and then bring it back.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)