User talk:Erik/Archive 28

Why over 6 years?
Why would that section on American History X talk not be archived for over 6 years? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the DNAU template generates that as a default value. Do you not think that section should belong on the talk page? I think it should be kept in the open as a reference available to use. If you want, I can add a few more to that section so it's not just one item. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit long. If it isn't used in the next 6 months, it's probably not getting used. I'm really not seeing the value anyway. Since this is an actual book, not a web source, using it would actually require someone to get the book to know what it says and where in it the cited items are said. If they already have the book, they won't need the suggestion. If they don't have the book....well, I'm not too confident that anyone will make the effort. So we end up staring at what is probably a solid source, but one that never gets used, for 7 years? That just doesn't seem like an improvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "If they don't have the book....well, I'm not too confident that anyone will make the effort." I am saying that the section should stay there in case someone does. It does mean that there needs to be an editor who is interested in working on this film article and is willing to get the resources to do that. It's basically like a to do template in that regard. I put that reference there, as I've done for some other articles, because in my research of certain films, I found chapters about other ones and want to list them somewhere. I think it is better to have that information available to editors somewhere on Wikipedia. Alternately, we could put this reference in a kind of "Further reading" section so readers can notice the book and decide if they want to get it to read the chapter. We can't predict the future, but I'm not sure if future interested editors would look in the archives for possible references to use. They could go to the talk page expecting something like the "to do" template and find this reference to follow up on. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably more appropriate for the further reading section. And yes, we can predict the future. That's the very nature of a prediction. It is an estimate that something will happen, not a proven fact. I still see no valid reason that this should be parked at the top of the page for almost 7 years. 17:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it to a "Further reading" section in the article. I think you are too concerned about this section having an expiration date or not. I am saying that the section should be treated as undated, meaning it is not in the same to-be-archived-at-some-point category as other discussions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Online ambassador for Wikipedia Education Project?
Hi Erik. You might remember that you kindly got in touch last year when I was running the first iteration of a course on approaches to research for second year undergraduate students in Film Studies at Queen Mary, University of London. Over the course of 6 weeks, students in small groups adopt, evaluate and edit an existing Wikipedia page on a single film topic. I was wondering if you still might be interested in being an online ambassador for the course this year? You can find out more on the Course page here. In terms of time commitment, I hope it wouldn't take up too much. About 20 students are working on their small group Wikipedia project (in groups of about four students each) for around six weeks, and the course began at a gentle pace on 10 January 2014. If you'd like to know more, feel free to send me a message - or if you would like to sign up, that would be wonderful! Thanks very much for your time, best wishes, --DrJennyCee (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! I reviewed the page, and I am wondering if you could explain a bit more about the responsibilities of being an online ambassador. In addition, will the students already know what articles they will work on? If not, I can make suggestions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Erik. Thanks so much for getting back to me. I'm not sure I fully understand the responsibilities of being an online ambassador either, but I get the sense that it is to do with being willing to let me and my students contact you if we run into technical difficulties, or if we have questions about the internal rating and review process for article quality. But particularly I think we'd get a lot of benefit from seeking advice from you about the suitability of a particular article for improvement. The students don't yet know what articles they will work on, and while they may already have some ideas about which articles they'd like to adopt, I'm sure they'd also benefit from your advice on what to choose. My recommendations to the students so far have been that they should be looking for an article that hasn't already been very extensively edited and improved, but which still has some material already there. The restrictions on their choice are as follows: they must adopt an article about a single film that is commercially available on DVD with English subtitles. They also need to choose a film where there are existing research materials relating to it, particularly material like journal articles, books, newspaper articles and so on. Please let me know if you'd like any more information - I'd be happy to add more. --DrJennyCee (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! I would be happy to help. We have article guidelines at MOS:FILM as well as resources listed at WP:FILMRES. I am not seeing on the page where I sign up as online ambassador, though. Do I click "Enroll"? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A request for your expertise
Hello Erik. I hope that you had a nice holiday season and that your journey into 2014 is going well. I don't know if you are aware but AllRovi‎ has gone back to being Allmovie. I started a thread about moving the page here Talk:AllRovi. Based on this edit I think it is time to proceed with the move. Normally I would go ahead and move it but I am pretty sure that it has been moved at least once before and I have not dealt with double redirects or any other pitfalls of dealing with a situation like this. I also went to the WP:RPM page but as I read through it I couldn't decide if this move had any business being there. When you get a chance could you please take a look and give me an idea how we might proceed. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Allrovi template for our EL sections has already been updated. I think that is another good reason that we should move the article. MarnetteD | Talk 02:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am seeing two articles: AllRovi and Allmovie. It seems more complex than just making a page move. Maybe we should merge the former to the latter and try to mention AllRovi more explicitly there? (Pardon the late response!) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries on response time :-) I hadn't even searched for the Allmovie article. IMO a merge is definitely the way to go. In all my years here I have never started a merge discussion. Do you know which template is used? MarnetteD | Talk 16:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we could be bold with merging it. We would follow the steps at WP:MERGE. Might be worth trying to find a reliable source that covers this change in name and/or ownership. I've done a little bit of corporate work lately (created some company articles) so what we could do is try to improve each article separately (based on the name) and then combine the bodies as it fits. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know it is a lot to ask, as you are usually quite busy here at WikiP, but if you wanted to update these article as you have the time that would be great. I am dealing with things off-wiki that limit my time (in fact I am heading out the door when I finish this) and I might not be of help even if this wasn't the case. Also, I think we need cleanup on the Template:AllRovi movie. 1) It probably needs to be renamed to avoid confusion. 2) The "a" in Allmovie needs to be capitalized. 3) All of the mentions of Allrovi in the instructions should be changed to Allmovi also too avoid confusion. Again, I know this is a lot to ask but any help you can provide will be much appreciated. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"One of my personal mantras is to focus on content"
Haha. By focus on content, you mean raise this about me on someone else's talkpage? Well done. And for the record, I have "behave(d) politely, calmly and reasonably" in this and every case. Now remind me who's been edit-waring on No Other Woman (1933 film)? Does that deserve to be ignored blindly over AGF? The correct answer is no, BTW.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are one of the regulars at WT:FILM. Your attitude toward others, especially in disagreements, has been abrasive. BMK is not without fault, but for the most part, he falls outside the community. I make it a goal to focus on content, but that does not mean I am supposed to keep quiet when other editors, especially regulars, are not going to be routinely welcoming. You make good contributions, but my concern is that editors (experienced and novice) outside the community will be put off from participating. I don't want it to be the norm to denigrate others even if they seem deserving. The rest of the Internet suffers from that. I know that you did not edit war at No Other Woman, and I've commented on that doing by others. However, WT:FILM is the main forum for editors to talk about film on Wikipedia, and I think we can set an example in being collaborative. I think by large, we regulars are quick in coming to a consensus on various matters, but I also think that we can be more welcoming. I'm fine with moving on from the now-collapsed discussion, but I'm going to periodically remind everyone about these behavioral policies if there's animosity. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Your attitude toward others, especially in disagreements, has been abrasive." You mean just like a proper discussion in real life, that can get a bit heated? Hold the frontpage!  Outside of edit wars by other users and vandalism by IPs, I think you'll find I'm very helpful, polite and calm.  How many bad IP edits does it take for someone to stop assuming good faith? 1? 10? 1,000? Fool me once, etc.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course discussions can get heated, but we have to behave politely, calmly and reasonably even then. WP:CIVIL says:
 * "Just because we're online and unpaid doesn't mean we can behave badly to each other... there's pretty much nowhere where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into fist-fights, shouting matches, hair-pulling or name-calling. The same applies here, too."
 * "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them."
 * "No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to 'grow up' or include any wording along the lines of 'if this were kindergarten' in your messages."
 * I know that you can be very helpful, polite and calm. You post your thoughts at reasonable discussions and notify others about ongoing things for their interest. But you've said that it's different and appropriate in heated discussions, and that's where I am disagreeing with you. It reminds me of other editors like Ace Class Shadow, ThuranX, Collectonian. I don't find Wikipedia the place to behave "normally". We have to strive for the model set down in these behavioral policies. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Texas Chain Saw FAC
Hey Erik, it's been a long time. I was thinking about making a major push for FA-status on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in time for its 40th anniversary in October. Any advice? Regards, -- Tærkast (Discuss) 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, thanks for the heads-up at the WikiProject Film talk page about the proposed move. I agree with you that "chain saw," two words, is correct as per the onscreen title, copyright registration, etc. ... and that's how Merriam Webster spells it! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I reviewed Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive6, and it looks pretty close. I would suggest contacting editors who commented on the FAC page but did not support the article for whatever reason. Maybe contact the admin who closed it as "not promoted" to find out why and to determine what was needed to get it promoted. My own concern is that not all possible sources have been reviewed. For example, I just plugged the title into Google Scholar and found this which was not referenced in the article. I know that there are sources that are hard to get to, but it's not a reason to shrug them off. It's probably why I haven't pursued any Featured Articles. I'm not that happy with Fight Club because it reflects an early and not-comprehensive style, and I am hoping to rewrite it in better context looking at all the sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Erik. It just seems a shame for me to abandon this project now, it'd be my sort of magnum opus of sorts, getting it to FA status. So yeah, I'll take a look and see what I can do. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 17:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The East (film)
I saw that you were a primary contributor to this article, and thought I'd inform that the film has been mislabelled as American for quite some time. I've changed it significantly to reflect the fact that it is actually a British film. Feel free to look over my changes. Also, what's up?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  17:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , thanks for letting me know. Nationality in the lead section's opening sentence can be a muddled issue. I am not sure if this is a distinctly British film. The primary studio is Fox Searchlight Pictures (as reflected here), and this by The Guardian says "rest of the world" for the country field. I assume you find it British because of the involvement of Scott Free Productions? It may be that it is not worthwhile to claim that it is American or British. My preferred wording in such cases is to just call it "English-language", and we can revise the lead section to mention the Americanness of Fox Searchlight Pictures and the Britishness of Scott Free. This would be in line with MOS:FILM. If you're still not sure, we can start a discussion on the talk page. I'm in no rush to define it either way.


 * Otherwise, I'm doing well! Just saw Her over the weekend and was quite blown away. I suspect it will be my favorite of the "best" films of the awards season. Hope your trip went well and that it was a good family gathering. Let me know what you would like to do about the Trost coverage. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I saw Her last week, and I definitely agree so far. I've yet to see 12 Years a Slave, Philomena, Nebraska, Dallas Buyers Club, or Captain Phillips, but I'm seeing the latter this Wednesday. Wolf of Wall Street is definitely in second for me. American Hustle was good but not great. I can honestly say I think Gravity is wildly overhyped, because it's beautifully and incredibly shot and edited, but it's weak in the writing department. What all have you seen?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've only seen 12 Years a Slave and Gravity of the bunch. 12 Years a Slave is extremely well-done. I had seen McQueen's previous films (Hunger and Shame), so I was looking forward to that one. I sort of agree with the consensus that it is not a film for repeated viewings, though I will probably see it again when it comes out on Redbox. I thought Gravity was spectacular, but it does make me think of Avatar's run in being a visual spectacle (though with better acting by Bullock and a better story). I'm especially interested in seeing Dallas Buyers Club, as I've had a chance to see McConaughey in Bernie and even Killer Joe. I'm curious to see the rest, of course. Kind of intrigued by The Wolf of Wall Street, especially after I read this at The New Yorker, which responded to the controversy surrounding the film. Captain Phillips, I'm curious to see how a whole film is made, since the previews seemed to tell the whole story anyway. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Who the fuck is running the Film Project,, Erik?
Are people like Lugnut and Clarityfiend and Ron Sinden the best the project has to offer these days? Have the really good editors been driven off because nobody stops these assholes from running rampant and stifling any creativity and improvements. Jsut what the fuck is going on there? BMK (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The film project isn't "run" by anyone. This is Wikipedia, it doesn't work that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Film
Erik, hello. My apologies for bothering you, but I just started to contribute on Wikipedia in general, and today stumbled on the WikiProject Film. I joined, because I tend to focus on the film pages, but if you don't mind, could use some direction on how to get started, or where help is needed. Thanks in advance. (btw, noticed on your user page that you wrote the article for Fight Club - coincidently, I went to school with Jim Uhls, and still remain friendly with him)

Onel5969 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, not a problem to message me. :) That's pretty cool that you went to school with Jim Uhls! I would say to work on articles about topics that interest you. Fight Club is a favorite film, which was why I devoted a lot of time to the article. Beyond that, I work on films that interest me, and I tend to gravitate toward articles about upcoming films. These tend to get a lot of page views, so I like to put together information and know that a lot of readers will benefit from that. WikiProject Film has guidelines at MOS:FILM that you could read if you have some time. Are there any articles of films that you like, that look like they are pretty bare-bones? I'm happy to help make suggestions on what you can do. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back so quickly... I've already made contributions on a dozen or so pages. I have a pretty eclectic taste, although I'll probably make more contributions on older, rather than newer films (especially films of the 40's and 50's).  I did some work on They Were Expendable, which Beyond My Ken helped look over, which was very helpful (that was before I learned about the Edit Summary).  I'll look through the films I enjoy, and start to go work on pages that interest me.  My question regarding the film project, was is there list similar to that for the copy editors, which shows where effort is needed?  Also, if you come across something which you think needs doing, don't hesitate to point me in that direction.  (also, that was a pretty good class of folks we had at UCLA, in addition to Jim, we had Shane Black, Ed Solomon, Tim Robbins, Mariska Hargitay, just to name a few).  I look forward to any input/direction you might give me.  Onel5969 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Check out Template:WPFILM Announcements. The sub-heading has a few useful links. "Articles needing attention" could be of interest to you. Beware that "Cleanup listing" is unfortunately out of date. "Requests" is a list of red links, and film articles could be created from these if they meet the notability guidelines. That's awesome about Shane Black -- Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of my favorites as well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the direction.  I started out on Bonnie & Clyde, off the "articles needing attention".  If you have a moment, I'd love to hear your criticism on what I've done (on both the article and the talk page), so that I can know if I'm on the right track, or what adjustments I need to make.  Onel5969 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Erik... it's me again. I just attempted to edit the article Bed and Sofa. I pulled it off the Category:Film articles needing attention to supporting materials list. I saw it was a "start" level article, and I've attempted to upgrade it. Could you please take a look at it and let me know what you think. Under the criteria, I think I fulfilled the requirements to get it up to at least level B. Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like a nice expansion! I'm swamped today, so I will have to take a look later this week. (I want to say tonight, but I may just want to unwind.) Nudge me if I haven't taken a look in a week's time. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . Cool.  Thanks for that.  Glad you won't get to it right away... am making some slight style changes to conform to the MOS, as well as adding sections for the same reason.  Onel5969 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My apology...
...for my incivlity on your talk page. BMK (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If there is anything you feel we can collaborate on, let me know. I'd be happy to work with you. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Working on a new project, help would be greatly appreciated
I've been working on an article for the 2011 film The FP, directed by Brandon Trost (who you helped me with prior) and Jason Trost. I'm probably going to use several of the sources you sent to me, but if you have anything else (or even better, just want to help me write the article), that'd be fantastic. If not, totally fine, but I figured I'd extend the invitation. Thanks! Also, I saw Captain Phillips, and it was fantastic. Pleasantly surprised, because I agreed that it seemed like it'd be hard to make a movie out of a plot that seemed advertised, but they did it. Barkhad Abdi is a name to look out for, I'm telling you.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! I found a few references already and will post them soon on the talk page of that sub-page. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's in the mainspace now. What do you think?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  03:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like a great new article! I have some feedback to give but not till tonight (hopefully). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Chlotrudis
Hi Erik. You mentioned at a WP:FILM discussion that you, too, might feel the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film isn't notable. Would you mind popping at at Talk:Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film‎? Another editor who's been harassing me at WP:CSC, who wants every single award and nomination by anybody to be in all lists, is now following me around to individual articles, not wanting to me to question the notability of any of these award mills. You and I might disagree on certain specifics, but I respect your overall view and abilities as an editor and hope you might bring your reasoned view here. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just read the discussion at WT:SAL. Regarding Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, I have to say that this is very significant coverage. It looks like The Boston Phoenix has some more than passing coverage as well. I don't think it would be successfully deleted at an AfD discussion. Like I've mentioned before, I would be interested in a way to group awards, and if Chlotrudis is to stick around, it seems like it would belong in one for independent films, along with Spirit Awards, Gotham Awards, etc. Despite the animosity at the WT:SAL discussion, I have to agree that it is hard to pin down what criteria to use to exclude an award, if the award-giver is considered notable per Wikipedia's standards. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I do appreciate your taking a look at the SAL RfC. If nothing else I think you'll agree that an obsessive eccentric short-circuited any serious discussion. The cat-on-a-stick article still makes this group sound like a local Boston film club that a Boston alternative newspaper supports, and I wouldn't call it notable by Wikipedia standards, but two respectful editors can disagree politely and collegially.


 * What do you think of some of the categories I suggested at the previous WP:FILM discussion? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to group organizations by regional and non-regional? And if I may make a comment about your exchange with The Rambling Man, I think you are both enabling each other in your language. A key goal in discussion is to focus on content. This means to ignore incivility and not respond in kind. Instead, continue framing the discussion as content-based. One type of writing that I try to avoid is any kind of accusatory "you" statement. This is reflected in my initial response above. One type of writing I do strive for is to ask direct questions, as you saw in the WT:FILM discussion, to get an answer about regrouping the content rather than removing it. I also try to write statements like "I disagree" about a particular suggestion, which separates the point from the editor. It is hazardous to write comments that contain accusatory statements because others will feel the need to defend themselves by attacking, and the focus on content is lost. I'm not sure where to go with this discussion next. We have a few Featured Lists that list awards won by films, and we could identify one with a still-active editor and pitch the notion of regrouping the awards so we can have the prominent ones on top and regional after, and so forth. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As always, I appreciate very much the collegial way we work together. I will say, as anyone would notice, that I tried to be polite and take the high road with that other editor in the beginning. His disingenuous baiting and needling, together with deliberately inane questions designed to elicit an intemperate response, finally reached a point where they needed calling out -- and once his stalking me to other pages began, I can't be polite anymore once the crazy behavior starts.


 * Not sure what you mean by "a still-active editor," but I do like the idea of grouping. While I'm still uncomfortable with laundry- listing a host of insignificant awards, I've always been a big believer in compromise solutions. And this seems a good one, because it creates a necessary perspective. I've suggested some initial possibilities at the WP:FILM discussion we started some time ago. Do you think that'd be a good place to start? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the challenge of being civil on Wikipedia. :) The policy demands one's best behavior. One cannot be impolite even if the situation becomes exhausting. If an editor is an unwanted presence without anything new to say, it is not necessary to respond to the person. You can re-engage with other editors who have said something or post a notice elsewhere to invite other editors to the discussion.


 * As for my suggestion, what I mean is going to WP:FILMSPOT and identifying an article like List of accolades received by Atonement (film). Looking at the primary contributors here, we can see that JuneGloom07 put together that list. We can approach her with the idea of regrouping with approaches like your initial possibilities. Otherwise, we can try to find an older list article and rework that as a kind of experiment. I think the current awards season's list articles will be too busy to do that kind of thing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Update
I made the nomination for the FP, just waiting on a review now. Also, I made an article for Destin Daniel Cretton (director of Short Term 12 yesterday. Tell me if I get annoying telling you everything I'm doing, by the way.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope, not being annoying at all! :) The new article looks good. You can add "External links" with a link to his IMDb page, as well as the appropriate WikiProject banner on the talk page. As for the filmography, I have to admit I am frustrated with these kinds of tables, though it is more of a personal preference. Kind of wish wikitables were advanced enough so a reader could check off a "Director" box and see only those films. You could add sorting to the film name and the function-related columns. I'm just not crazy about that since sorting is not equivalent to actual filtering; the first sorting click will put all empty "Director" rows at the top. I tend to keep filmographies simple for that reason, but like I said, sort of a personal preference. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally forgot about external links. That's usually the first thing I do. Whoops. I can understand the frustration with the Wikitable, but I feel like it'd be a much greater hindrance to have to specify for each one, since Cretton does so much. I'll play around with some stuff, see what I can figure out.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I poked around the sort-related templates, and there may be a way to put the "Yes" items first. Whenever you decide to make these columns sortable, I think you could use sort where you have Yes and . That would help because readers who sort by a function-related column want to see the "Yes" items at the top. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not doing this right. I put the sort template on and it seems to have done absolutely nothing.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw what you just tried. I had the same idea. It doesn't work.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, we keep editing over each other. What did you try exactly? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding the "sortable" wikitable, and doing exactly what you did with your last edit. It's not liking us. For some reason, the "sortable" table doesn't fully function: one of the film is always not where it should be.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  23:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What about dropping the "Functioned as" row? Maybe it interferes with the sorting somehow. We could also try a simple "Yes" instead of the template. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It worked.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  00:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I have no experience with good article criteria. However, based on some of the good articles I've been looking at, I feel like The FP might be somewhat close to it, but I've been wrong before. What would you think I should add to it?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  01:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it worked! What about using sort to put all the "Yes" items at the top? Is that still not doable? As for The FP, you could view the special features on the DVD or Blu-ray and incorporate new detail into "Production". It would help to know how this film came together. How did they get a million dollars to produce it, for example? Also, maybe try to find out about audience or critical reception at SXSW or the other festivals? Sometimes it's good to just plug in combinations of keywords to find new sources. For example, I just searched fp sxsw and on the second page found this. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still working on procuring a copy of the movie, no idea when I'll find it. I'm not exactly willing to buy it, so I'd rather watch it then make a decision (if you can't tell by this, I have a big film collection, but I love all of them). I'll try to see what I can dig up, and I'll definitely look up the SXSW stuff. Also, I'm getting more and more iffy on that $1 million source. While it's from IGN, there was another source I can't seem to find that said it was less than $100,000, and IMDb has a $60,000 estimate.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You can Google with budget as a keyword too. This (already used in the article) says, "The group made the film for next to nothing (it was mentioned during the IndieFest Q&A that the price tag was $60,000, but the filmmakers declined to comment on the budget during the interview), borrowing or making much of the gear needed for shooting." That seems more realistic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed it up. You have no idea how helpful you've been in helping me build this thing. Thank you.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I also just realized I failed to acknowledge your comment about getting Cretton's filmography to sort and put the "yes" items at the top. I'm not sure what you mean.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * When we click on one of the functions, there is an opposite effect -- the films where the person did not have that function go to the top. It's not a big deal since this wikitable is small, but it is contradictory. (Even if we put "No" instead, alphabetically speaking, the "No" items come before the "Yes" items.) I was thinking that the sort template as applied to each cell could make it so that when a reader clicks one of the functions, all the "Yes" items will be above the blank (or "No") items. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I was tweaking with it and I can't figure anything out. Also, I don't know if you technically can since you helped me make it, but would you be willing to vote on my FP nomination at DYK? I can't help but feel like I'm violating some kind of policy by asking.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not a policy violation, but since I've helped you along, I think it's best to let another editor review it. The process can take a little time, don't worry. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm just kinda giddy. I've made a lot of articles, but I've never come close to the level of pride I feel for The FP. I'll calm myself.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's satisfying, isn't it? I like to work on upcoming films especially because I know a lot of people will read about them. As you've seen, I also try to do list articles because I've learned that readers want to know about similar kinds of films (and may not really know about categories or like browsing them). Or even something like Solomon Northup's Odyssey that a portion of them read because it is linked at 12 Years a Slave. I used to do a bunch of DYKs as you can see at User:Erik/Awards, but I think I just enjoy simply putting content together nowadays. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow you have a lot of awards. The only "award" I've ever received is a trout slap for a template I made when I was extremely young. And I just realized I've worked extensively on articles you've made, namely All Is Lost, Olympus Has Fallen, and White House Down.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Lego Movie
This a neutral notice to an editor at The Lego Movie that you may want to view a pending edit war at the Reception section. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Many apologies
I want to offer my deepest apologies if I am coming of rude and/or brusque. I have had a longer day editing here then I can remember in quite some time and too much of it has been dealing with problem editors. While I think that there are other places on the web for something like this do not doubt that if, consensus is to keep the list I will help if I can in keeping it up to snuff. You set such a high standard around here and I hope that you know that I really respect that fact. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 05:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's completely fine. :) I would be okay with you disagreeing with me completely on this. It's allowed to happen! ;) I guess I just want to realize any potential that this topic may have. If someone reads about a notoriously bad accent in a film article, it would be nice to give them a way to learn of other examples on Wikipedia itself. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 06:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. The sandman (not Neil Gaiman's but the much older one) has been calling me for some time. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 06:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I woke up this morning and watched last night's BBCAmerica episode of The Graham Norton Show. Gary Oldman mentioned that the makers of the Tinker, Tailor ... had him use a dialect coach for his accent. He said that he had lived in for so long that he had too many Americanisms in his daily speaking. I found that fascinating, especially in light of out ongoing discussion. :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Skyfall BO
This is a neutral notice of a discussion concerning this film's box office section.Spinc5 (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC
This is a neutral request for comment as a participant in a past discussion regarding a similar topic at Talk:The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Film news
I don't know if WP:Film still does the news thing but it might be worth mentioning that the first ever Oscar winner Wings (1927 film) and Ben-Hur (1959 film) passed GA in the same week which I think is a considerable achievement.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thought it was a good idea

 * List of films featuring time loops

It is still crude I know :) Valoem   talk  20:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey,, that's awesome! :) I'm pleasantly surprised. You should add Edge of Tomorrow too! It helps to add references for each film so we can know that each one was noted for the time loop. Also, I recommend adding a link to this list in each film's "See also" section (if there isn't one, create it). You can see the films at list of films featuring surveillance for how that is done. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also added Timecop, but I wasn't sure if you consider this a loop. Valoem   talk  20:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on what the sources say. Try looking in Google Books using keywords like timecop "time loop". How did you come across my user page, anyway? :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I actually ran into your posts in 2010 and was about to contact you over an incident with another editor, but was resolved beforehand. Recently, I was looking for a special permission that could allow me to view deleted articles. I discovered RFA was the only way and starting looking through my history only to discovered a huge argument over the plot summary of A Prophet with a certain R.C. you may be familiar with. Then I came to your page and saw the loops and was interested. Valoem   talk  21:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny how that happens! :) Thanks for creating the list. I like such lists because I noticed that readers will click through to lists more often than categories. I've tried to make lists relevant to an upcoming film, like the time loop one was for Edge of Tomorrow. It's nice to see the traffic spike and know that people are learning about other movies of the same kind. Again, thanks! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we may need to establish an inclusion criteria otherwise this list may face LfD. How should the distinction between a "regular" time travel film vs a time loop film be defined and what about films such as Paycheck and Minority Report which retain some themes featured in time loop films, but does not involve actual time travel. Right now I am maintaining only the strictest of definitions for inclusion. Valoem   talk  13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Gross of re-released films
Reported the matter here. Please care to comment and voice your opinions. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that
I think you know what I'm referring to. Much obliged.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  00:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Gross of re-released films
Reported the matter about box office gross of re-released films here. Please care to comment and voice your opinions. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Long time no speak!
I haven't talked to you in awhile, man. How've you been? I'm hoping good. Just saw Lone Survivor today, and I thought it was an absolute masterpiece. Have you managed to watch it yet?

Apologies for this message being kinda scatter brained, I've been awake for 22 hours as of now.

Keeping in tone with that, I've done a shit tonne of updating to The FP and I think it's really coming along. I finally got the DVD from my library, so I'm going to be adding more production information and a plot summary in the next few days. I'm excited!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  22:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey,, I've been doing well. :) I haven't been on Wikipedia too much lately -- too busy with everything else, unfortunately! I haven't seen Lone Survivor yet -- it seemed good as a rental. Cheaper that way! I did see American Hustle recently. Pretty good, though a bit bulging at the seams in terms of following everything that goes on on different levels. Hoping to see Grand Budapest Hotel this weekend too. And The FP looks great -- that page is now the place to go to to learn about the movie! :) And dude, get some sleep, haha. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I try to sleep. It doesn't work :P I can definitely understand that, I had the same problem for a little over a year. Take your time man, hope to see you back and editing soon! I saw it as a cheap theatre for $1.75, and I can honestly say it was worth going to the theatre for. I loved it. I completely agree with your opinion on American Hustle. I'm also trying to find a theatre close-by that's playing Budapest, but my closest one is over a half hour away. I might just have to wait, unfortunately.


 * Also, thank you! I spent about three hours watching through the various production featurettes. I'm planning on watching the film itself and writing a plot summary tonight, if I have time. I'm probably gonna buy it afterwards so I can get the production notes booklet, which I'm sure would add even more information to the Production section. Thank you for that suggestion, by the way! Using the featurettes (obviously) added a huge amount of information to the page.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if sleep really is a problem, I hope you'll consider getting that checked out. :-P Otherwise, Fight Club happens... and yeah, I usually rent from Redbox since the cost is reasonable. I go to the theaters only once in a while; last time was Frozen. I saw Fruitvale Station and The Last Days on Mars via Redbox in the past two weeks. I have Netflix too and usually get discs for movies no longer on Redbox. Like right now, I have Short Term 12 to watch. I live near the city so I'm fortunate to be able to see indie films that aren't everywhere. Hopefully Grand Budapest Hotel will have a wider release!


 * I'm glad the featurettes were beneficial. It's amazing (and a little frustrating) how much useful information is "locked up" in video clips. I wish production notes were as common as featurettes! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Short Term 12 was absolutely fantastic, and I thoroughly enjoyed Fruitvale Station. I think Grand Budapest just went to a theatre close to me, so I'll probably go see that this weekend. You also have no idea how many of my buddies ask me if I accidentally set up terrorist organizations when I get sleep :P And I've finally submitted FP for good article status. Fingers crossed!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  16:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hah, did you see Short Term 12 and Fruitvale Station before me, or did you watch them because I mentioned them? :) Either way, good taste! I've seen how much The FP has expanded; very nice job! I'm jealous that you have time these days to expand an article. Me, I'm touch-and-go, unfortunately... too much other stuff going on. Movie-wise, hoping to see Noah and Captain America: The Winter Soldier this month. I also have I'm So Excited from Netflix per my partner's request... would not have picked otherwise, but who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw both of them back in January, on the same day actually. Sorry, you're not quite that influential :P And thank you! I really don't have a lot of time in the day, but like I mentioned, I don't sleep much. That's when I do all the editing, at least the big ones. The bulk of my other edits are similar, touch-and-go. Tell your partner they have good taste! I haven't had a chance to see I'm So Excited yet, but the trailers look great and I'm a big Almodovar fan. Labyrinth of Passion is easily one of my favourite foreign films, especially in the "comedy" department. I had a chance to see Cap today, but quickly discovered I had absolutely no money. Noah I want to see out of my love of Aronofsky and just to see what the fuss is about. Also also, finally got around to watching The Conjuring, after trying consistently for nine months. Despite that ridiculousness, it was well worth the wait. Really enjoyed it.


 * Also just realized I neglected to mention The Last Days on Mars. I've heard nothing but awful things. Was it any good?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Last Days no Mars was a little disappointing, especially in the third act. I find Europa Report a better indie sci-fi movie. I'm So Excited was funny in parts but kind of uneven overall. Variety said Spanish-language humor (double entendres and whatnot) was probably lost in translation, and I agree with that assessment. Also saw Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which was excellent in its themes. Although I did read a Washington Post article that did a good job evaluating what the film got wrong in terms of the themes. I also saw Ender's Game, and it was a bit of a dud. Typical case of the book being better. Will also have the doc The Gatekeepers in from Netflix soon. Weather's getting nicer in these parts, though, so will probably dial back on my movie-watching, just a little. How about you? See Cap yet? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I really enjoyed Europa Report. Just saw that recently, simply because I knew Sharlto Copley was involved. Still have yet to see I'm So Excited and Winter Soldier, unfortunately. No one else shares my interest in seeing Cap, so I'll probably wait until Blu-ray. Ender's Game was better than I was expecting, because I was expecting it to suck. And I've only vaguely heard of Gatekeepers. Weather's getting okay here, I'm in the most eastern part of the Midwest, so it's a bit bipolar in terms of weather consistency. Glad to hear it's getting nice where you are, though!
 * As for what I've seen, I watched Pan's Labyrinth again, always a wonderful experience. Showed it to my girlfriend, who is really in to make up stuff and hadn't seen it before. She adored it. Rewatched Children of Men as well, I still can't believe how incredibly well done that film is. I also watched Nebraska, finally. I wasn't in the right level of awakeness, because I sorta zoned out several times. Very good, what I did see though. I just need to be more awake and watch it again. I'm planning to watch Dallas Buyers Club now that my library hold came in, as well as L.A. Confidential for the first time (always meant to see it, never did).  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Doubling up on replying here. All my work on The FP has paid off. It was promoted to GA just a few minutes ago. First time I've ever gotten an article I created up to GA, so I'm pretty happy. Thank you for all your help on it!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  03:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, congratulations on getting it up to GA status! Wanna go for the Triple Crown next? ;) Regarding Ender's Game, I think I just knew the book too well to not know that the film was just a shallow take. I missed the siblings' political involvement (though I understand that it had to be dropped for length, which is a sucky aspect of film adaptations). Pan's Labyrinth is a great film; I still remember that punch-in-the-stomach feeling over what the father did at the end. I should watch it again, and I've liked del Toro's effort to make designs look amazing, like in the Hellboy movies and Pacific Rim. And Children of Men is great as well. I'm a big fan of science fiction and always like to see more. Nebraska does look like a slightly boring film, for all its apparent merits... like I'd watch it during the day as not to fall asleep. I saw The Grandmaster last night and was not crazy about it. It got good reviews, but I couldn't like it that much. There was a slowness that made me a little impatient. Would rather have seen The Wolf of Wall Street, but it's too long of a film to see on a weeknight. I remember enjoying L.A. Confidential very much, thinking to myself "wow" after having seen it. I'll be getting The Night of the Hunter from Netflix on Blu-ray (it was DVD-only up until recently, so I saw the change and bumped it up); really curious to see that classic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm planning to, but I'm not sure where to start on getting the FP up to FA. And I totally agree with your Ender's Game analysis, I was just able to get passed it. Saw Winter Soldier a few days ago, absolutely adored it. Quite possibly my favourite MCU film to date. Also, saw both Dallas Buyers Club and Kill Your Darlings. DBC was brilliantly acted and otherwise just all right, where KYD was really interesting and entertaining throughout. I love Dane DeHaan, so that probably had a hand. I also got 12 Years a Slave finally, gonna watch that tomorrow, as well as Out of the Furnace, which I'm excited just to watch because I want an opinion on it. I also got Metallica Through the Never out of curiosity (again, Dane DeHaan) and I'm watching that soon as well.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  04:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably no difference
Hi, just judging from your comment at Talk:Tangled not sure that the RM poster didn't unwittingly wrong-foot you by not mentioning the dab including Tangled (2001 film) etc. If not then fine :). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added a follow-up comment on the talk page. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Valoem/List of auteurs
Hi,

User:Valoem/List of auteurs could you take a look at this? I think it has FA potential after extreme clean up. Valoem  talk   contrib  03:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I have not responded to this! It looks like an interesting list to have. My first thought is, what criteria is being used to add a director? For example, I see that David Fincher is listed based on a review of Panic Room. I think we need a more authoritative source than this. It may be ideal to limit references to film studies publications or career retrospectives that state that a director is seen as an auteur, rather than one film critic declaring this to be the case. Also, have you considered making a wikitable? You could have sortable columns like their name, the country of birth, birth year, death year where applicable, and a "Notes" column where applicable (such as an auteur becoming famous in another country than the one of origin). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Interstellar
How is Interstellar not an American film? Proud brit? Freak. That makes no sense. Are you trying to blow Christopher Nolan. You must be sick of fanboying Wally Pfister's Transcendence. Dumbass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.136.197 (talk • contribs) 12:07, May 9, 2014


 * Hi, no need to be rude. Naming the country in the opening sentence of a film article can be a controversial business. I really would be fine with calling it "American" because it is produced by several major American studios, but the counterargument is that Nolan is British and his production company has British roots, so it should be called British too. I would be fine with just calling it "English-language" and be done with it. There are some relevant guidelines you can see at MOS:FILM. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The nationality of the director isn't relevant. Wes Anderson is American but Budapest Hotel isn't an American film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.138.102 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you. Other editors and I have debated about what it means to define a film's so-called nationality. In this case, Christopher Nolan (like Wes Anderson) is considered an auteur, meaning they pretty much control their films. For Interstellar, the studios that are providing their resources are American, so it does make it an American production. But is that exactly the same thing as being an American film? For what it's worth, you can start a discussion at Talk:Interstellar (film) to discuss how to write the opening sentence. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox person image policy
I have a quick question. I'm involved in a disagreement with a user who has been very intent on keeping the 2010 image of Leonardo DiCaprio from the Berlin Film Festival, which is seen in this revision, rather than a January 2014 image of him that I uploaded, seen in this revision. The editor's argument led with Shutter Island being "more representative of DiCaprio's work (he's not a comedy actor)" which I don't think is necessary for an image, but I could be wrong. Is there any guideline or anything I can point him to, or am I in the wrong?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  12:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I clicked on your link expecting him to be goofy-looking in the newer picture... neither image represents a film, so I don't see why we should not use the 2014 picture in the infobox and the 2010 somewhere in the article body. The debates I've seen regarding the image have more to do with showing an actor "in their prime" as opposed to being in their 80s and retired for many years. In this case, Leo's actively acting, so I think the more current picture makes sense. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wanted (2008 film)/1
You are far and away the most active editor at Wanted (2008 film) so I am calling your attention to Good article reassessment/Wanted (2008 film)/1.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

InfoBox for Films - Request for template change to include name of lyricist
Hi Erik. Wow, that was quick. You promptly discarded my edit, and I see your point. :) Now, especially in the context of Indian cinema, the songwriter plays a critical role in the success or failure of a film. Since the template is currently skewed towards Hollywood films, it does not currently allow for the name of lyricist on the infobox template. I'd like to make the request to make room for this on the template. Would you be able to help with this, or help me make that request in the right place? Thanks, appreciate your time. ~pictowrit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictowrit (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I started a discussion on the template's talk page where you can make your case: Template talk:Infobox film. I reverted you because you were updating the documentation, which is different from the template. Adding the field to the documentation page does not mean that the template will now use that field. We can't say to use a field if the code for that field is not in the template. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Erik, thanks again. :) I'll try make my case. Appreciate your help. Thanks. Pictowrit (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)pictowrit

Nomination of List of films featuring powered exoskeletons for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films featuring powered exoskeletons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of films featuring powered exoskeletons until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice timing
Good work with White savior narrative in film. I just watched The Principal and I was interested in the theme. Low-and-behold, you made an article on it yesterday :) Keegan (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , that's awesome! :) I'm glad you got to check it out. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Four million plus articles, happenstance on Encore, curiosity, and Wikipedia. There's not a statistical model for it. Keep up the good work, Erik, let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Keegan (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , tangential to this topic, I was thinking about creating list of films featuring whitewashed characters. I don't know yet if I'll need help, but I can let you know when I have it up and running. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Embark vs. Embarks
This is very pedantic but I'm just curious for my own knowledge. Is 'embarks' definitely correct in the context of the Interstellar synopsis? I would have used embarks in the singular: "A lone man embarks on a journey..." And embark for the collective: "A team of scientists embark on a journey..." Phonetically, 'embarks' just jars with me a little. I could be completely wrong. Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierancremin (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's technically correct, but I agree that is jarring. Maybe we can reword it to get away from this issue. Something like "explorers and scientists team up to embark on a voyage"? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think that's a good idea. "Explorers and scientists unite to embark on a voyage"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierancremin (talk • contribs) 15:17, May 18, 2014‎


 * Sure, let's do that. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Heat film
Thanks for your change to Heat, calling it a crime film. An ip will probably change it back to action in 10 minutes though, with no edit summary and no talk page discussion. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have requested semi-protection for the page due to IPs repeatedly changing genre to action.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of New York in film


A tag has been placed on New York in film, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

New York in film
I didn't say that the page was nonsense. It's just that there's no article there, and we already have an article on the subject. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The speedy deletion marked it as nonsense. And that is a list article, which is different from the prose article we can have, as evidenced by the references. How about I add a paragraph and we keep that article? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Take your time and write a whole article. There is no deadline. As you know, there are whole books on the subject. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Does that work? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just acting on the article as it was, which was nothing more than a statement. I'm not sure that a separate article is necessary, despite the amount of info on the subject, but I agree that for the time being, the List of films set in New York City should suffice. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
I actually started a discussion on the talk page of the article. JOJ Hutton  16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I know...
About edit reverts, but as you see other side don't argue anything, just removing it and calling everything as "garbage". --Qizilbash123 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WP Film in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Film for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of White savior narrative in film


The article White savior narrative in film has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Vreddy92 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:N and tell me in what way the topic does not meet the notability guidelines. There is significant coverage from reliable sources about the topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Production companies
Glad to see you put it on the talk page, I was actually headed there to do it myself. I'm sincerely hoping a new parameter comes out of this. It'd be useful.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup! Thanks for revitalizing it. I don't really remember how we got here in the first place. I guess we mentally blurred the lines between the definitions of studios and of production companies. I do worry a little that a "Production company" field plus a "Studio" field would be too much, but it's also been annoying to enforce use of the "Studio" field especially when "Distributed by" exists. I think it's a matter of making sure editors ask themselves if use of the field really makes sense. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a chance it'll get cluttered, but I think it's worth trying. I also think it'll end up working in our favour, allowing for a more comprehensive infobox that isn't necessarily any bigger (considering it'll basically be the same length with an extra piece of text off to the side).  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I hope so. I am just thinking that for major-studio films, I would not want to use the "Production company" field. I've created a few production company articles and feel like if they are under a studio's aegis, they don't get much attention. Like for Edge of Tomorrow, WB is pretty much the company that's brought up in coverage. That just makes me think that such production companies don't warrant such heightened mention in the infobox but would be okay in the "Production" section. Also, a couple of unrelated items -- your comments for the WikiProject Report are great. For The FP, if you've ever helped someone with other articles, you could ask them to contribute to the FAC process. I've seen a few FA candidacies fail due to lack of attention (and feel bad because I noticed and didn't do anything to rescue them). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You make a valid point, but I feel like they would end up being included no matter what. I feel like it'd be an instance of removal, and if you're reverted, just leave it. On to your unrelated items -- thank you! I actually thought my comments were really poorly articulated and thought out, but maybe I'm just being too self-critical. As for The FP, I heeded your advice and asked Favre1fan93 to give a look at it. I've worked with him on a few things and reviewed Iron Man 3 for GA, which he had nominated. Thank you for all of your comments and contributions as well! I can't put into words how excited I'll be if I can get this barely-a-cult-film into a Featured Article.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  19:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Cast
Thanks for the clarification. Now if you will please fix it on the thousands of other films on Wikipedia using the wrong style. Udar55 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not the worst thing to have a "Cast" section with a simple cast list. It is just that with articles that haven't been fully developed, we don't know what it could look like when all coverage is factored in. Some articles use bulleted cast lists, some do a double-column cast list with some prose beneath, etc. In the case of Surf Ninjas, I could not find any actor or role-specific detail to warrant having a separate "Cast" section, which is why it works well in the plot summary. Also, other films may have cast lists too big to fit on top of the plot summary. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hotel films
Hello Erik. I hope that you are well and thriving on wiki and off. I am getting ready to watch a twin bill of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and The Grand Budapest Hotel this weekend. I know we have Category:Films set in hotels but we don't have a "List of films set in hotels." So I thought I would mention it as you are so skilled at creating these lists. I am, in no way, insisting on your doing this, a) I know how busy you are editing all manner of articles and b) it might not strike your fancy. I did have a fun thought about on list article like this. Wouldn't it be a hoot if we could give the hotels a "star" rating. Marigold might be a one star with hopes of improvement and Budpest could be a two or three star. OTOH the Bates Motel might be a negative two. HeeHee. I know this idea has no place on WikiP - I have often wished that there was a WikiFiction or WikiFun for this kind of thing. Cheers and have a great weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, good to hear from you! I like your thematic pairing planned for the weekend. Both films were very enjoyable. A list article would be good to have! I don't know if I am interested enough to create it myself. My general thinking with list articles is to create them when they can be highly visible, like creating List of films featuring the United States Navy SEALs for when Lone Survivor (film) came out. Maybe we can do that for when The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel 2 comes out! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding Americans to the mix in TBMH 2 is going to be interesting. With my interest in watching UK actors stretching back to the 1960s it is a joy to watch them (and grow old with them) through the years. Quartet (2012 film) is another film that fits in with this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Edge of Tomorrow
Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think we're damn close to getting this thing to GA. Am I being naive, or do you agree?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  16:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , I agree! There are a few elements that I think it could have. One is better sampling of reviews for the "Critical reception" section (and honestly, I feel like we should use reviews other than Variety and The Hollywood Reporter since we reference these two so many times elsewhere in the article body). Maybe what we could do is pick reviews from Metacritic that have an individual score similar to the aggregate one of 71, which could be a rule of thumb to say that these reviews are close to the consensus. Also, I think there could be a "Visual effects" subsection based on some sources I listed on the talk page. A good rule of thumb is to Google around with the film title and certain keywords, like "edge of tomorrow" pierre bohanna to find articles that may not pop up on the surface otherwise. We'd probably need to expand the lead section to encompass the article body better once we add these things. What are your thoughts? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Definitely agreed on the Variety/THR thing. I'm pretty good with critical reception areas, so once I finish up with the one for Neighbors (I've been putting it off), I'll look for more on EoT. I'd be happy to mock up a VFX section after that, maybe in a user subpage or something. Glad to see you agree! I think a few more touch ups and a c/e glossover, we could be good to go.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  17:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Congrats to you both for your work on the article. I don't know if you saw the series Torchwood last decade but Jack Harkness was another alien fighting "soldier" who couldn't be killed :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you ! I don't think I deserve equal credit with Erik, I've mostly been along for clean up and formatting stuff, but I appreciate the note! Also, can't say I've compared the two prior to right now, but Harkness and Cage do seem a bit similar, don't they? Harkness is way less of a coward, but that circumstance is pretty similar.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As an aging and grizzled wikignome I know that efforts - major and minor - deserve thanks. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

, regarding actor/actress, here are some interesting articles I found about the matter: 1, 2, 3. Obviously, a full transition has not been made, but I think sources indicate that "actor" can be applied to both men and women. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked over WP:GNL and I'd agree that it's fine. That's why I didn't contest the revert or anything, your reasoning makes sense to me. It's weird that she's mentioned as an actress for the Teen Choice Award, though. It's mostly a consistency thing for me, but I don't care a whole lot either way. I would honestly say we can dock the "actor" part entirely, since it's established at the start of the section and implied by the fact that she plays a character.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  18:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I like your suggestion! I went ahead and dropped "Actor". The Oscars still have "Best Actor" and "Best Actress" where the SAG Awards do "Best Male Actor" and "Best Female Actor". I would not be surprised if that gender-based distinction goes away in the next decade or so. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Why thank you! Glad we worked that out quickly. I agree that it'll probably be gone soon. I've got to wait for my ride to be done with work, and I'll be on my way home to work on the critical reception area, and possibly start on the VFX. The subpage will be here whenever I get to it, so I'll be sure to tell you when it's been started.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  19:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit summary...
...might be one of the funniest things I've ever read, and I can't even pinpoint why. Thank you for a good laugh at work.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  16:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Erik presents with verifiable information a revert by a Wikimedia Foundation production... Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Whistleblower FAC
Not sure if you noticed it, but I remember you saying you were going to review the article in its last FAC. Well, now's your chance, man!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  12:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Plan to review the article next week! Thanks for the heads-up. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cast box
I remember awhile box you created a box for the cast but I can't remember what film it was. I just want to look at it as an example for possible similar boxes in an anthology article. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey! I was probably referring to Panic Room. Hope that helps. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup, it sure does! Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)