User talk:Erik/Archive 30

Natalie Portman
So exactly why did you restore a large chunk of unsourced "Teen Choice" awards with an edit summary that appears intended to mislead people into believing you had only restored cited "Empire Awards" to the article?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , that was my mistake. I could not directly undo your removal of the Empire Awards, so I copied and pasted the "Popular awards" section code and kept the Teen Choice Awards code because a cursory glance showed that it was referenced. I see now that only part of the Teen Choice Awards was kept. I would thank you for fixing my mistake, but since you failed to assume good faith and threatened me with a block, I will not. Your conduct as an admin is very disappointing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You were aware that there was a dispute, and that any editor that restored unsourced information to the article without inline citations was subject to block, and then were not careful not to restore unsourced information? Take some recognition of the fact that I assumed enough good faith to ask first rather than block first.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made a mistake because I was focusing on restoring and adding the Empire Awards. I wish I caught it in the first place. You did not assume good faith because you threatened to block me instead of at least considering the possibility that a mistake was made. You continue to not assume good faith by saying that I was lucky that you did not just block me straightaway. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that my edit summary simply indicated that doing it again would lead to a block, and, indeed, if you did it again it would be hard put to see that edit as being in good faith. You made a mistake, I corrected it (leaving a warning against repetition), and asked why you had done it. I'm sorry that you don't recognise that as being an assumption that there was a strong possibility that you hadn't made the original edit provocatively. There are other editors from the project that would not have received the same courtesy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My problem is the implication. Even now, I feel paranoid trying to restore a section for the Austin Film Critics Association because maybe you'll see a mistake and assume that it was provocation and block me for it. I wasn't even sure if the placement of my citation would be an issue, considering that the next section did not have it placed like others in the article. I will try to restore content to the list article with sources, and I ask you to message me first. You can even revert me if the sourcing seems weak, and we'll work it out. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have you slotted in as one of the better-faith contributors to the discussion. Don't worry about mechanical errors leading to blocks.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Film project - Awards sourcing page
Hi, Erik. Thanks for your contributions to that recent discussion and the project. Regarding the page, would it not be useful to link it in the main project page for better exposure, or at least the talk page bannerspace for the time being? If you ask me, the page should ultimately be a comprehensive reference list of all awards deemed notable on Wikipedia (that of course have their own web site), including the critics awards. Also, on the reference table, the vertical bar in the title field for the Golden Globe Award reference would create a red "text ignored" value in the citation; it should either be omitted or replaced with a dash. Plus, if editors would be copy/pasting the citations from the page, it'd be best for the accessdate field to be left blank (without today's date). What do you think? --Lapadite (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , we can definitely increase the page's exposure. We can link to it on the main project page and perhaps from MOS:FILM as well. As for the vertical bar, my mistake, there is some code that can be used so a vertical bar within the title is properly shown. As for the accessdate, why do you think it should be left blank? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out how to show the vertical line at the moment. If you look at the code behind my signature, it is five characters that create it. I need to figure out the right opening-and-closing brackets to show the code instead of the line itself. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:FILM would be good as well. A blank accessdate, only because editors might forget to update it when copy/pasting the reference; If the today template is removed then the empty value may remind to add in the present date. Do you think the page should also include links to reliable secondary sources that list awards won, such as the NYT (as Betty Logan linked in the project talk page)?
 * Looks like you were able to fix the vertical line code, it shows now. Lapadite (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I finally figured out the vertical line code. As for the "accessdate" field, the today template will not be copied, so if an editor copies a reference from the list, it will just have that day's date in text. And yes, we can add Betty's link to the list. We could create a new section for that and any independent databases out there. For the current section, we could also break it down to major awards, critics' awards, and popular awards. That way, major awards won't be lost in the full list when it gets bigger. What do you think? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I had in mind. "Popular awards" is a bit vague and/or redundant; maybe title the subsections of the primary sources/databases "industry awards" and "critics awards", and use "miscellaneous" for all the others (Empire, MTV, People's Choice, etc); then the secondary sources section. Lapadite (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Hi, would love to get your opinion and peer review for my first wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ain%27t_Them_Bodies_Saints/archive1

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmLover91 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, I will take a look when I am free later today. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A request for Arbitration has been made for America: Imagine a World Without her
The request can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Erik, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Deletion discussion
There is a deletion discussion at Central Ohio Film Critics Association, a topic similar to one in which you participated here. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, at 2013 North Carolina Film Critics Association Awards and 2012 North Carolina Film Critics Association Awards. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Central Ohio Film Critics Association


A tag has been placed on Central Ohio Film Critics Association, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safiel (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have started a Dispute Resolution discussion for American Sniper
Please see here David A (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:American Sniper (film)/Commentary
Trust me, I am generally in favor of simplicity and less clumsy wording, but in my experience with hot button topics like this, wording that is likely to not inflame views, is good a idea in many circumstances. That said, I won't feel the least bit slighted if you remove it. It's just a suggestion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , I understood what you were trying to accomplish. :) I think if we add a portrayal-of-Chris-Kyle section (which will probably go at the top or near the top), we probably won't have to use that wording since the new section could be clear about the shaping of the film's character based on the real-life person. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, even better idea, brilliant Sir! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Tiger House editing
Hi Erik I am one of the producers of Tiger House - I believe you created the page for that, for which we are very grateful! One of the executive producers asked me to ensure that his name was mentioned, which I did some time ago by adding in all the EPs. I see in your last edit that you had removed this line. I would be really grateful if you would undo that change, or alternatively, add the EPs in the box on the right (my wiwki editing skills are not quite up to it!) I am not going to undo the change as you might simply redo it, which would be pointless! Thanks

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.231.76 (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Richard. It is uncommon to include executive producers in the article body unless reliable sources discuss how they were specifically involved with the film. In addition, the guidelines at Template:Infobox film state that the "Produced by" field should only be producers, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. This is because we want to avoid being indiscriminate on Wikipedia, and WikiProject Film generally does not include executive producers by default. Also, in editing articles in which you have a vested interest, please be aware of Conflict of interest. However the film debuts, Wikipedia's coverage of its critical reception will be based on what reliable and independent sources say. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Erik. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Erik~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hey again, I was wondering if I can get your opinion here?


 * Talk:Friday the 13th (2009 film)

I personally prefer a cast section so I can get a list of who plays who what is the precedence here? Valoem  talk  contrib  20:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae (film)
This was facing a review. Trying to salvage it from being demoted. Can you also do anything to improve it? I've overhauled the sourcing and added a lot of new content.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:A Letter to Momo#Good article push
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:A Letter to Momo. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Home invasions
Thanks for the thanks. I thought your username was familiar - didn't realise you'd changed it!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , didn't have a choice, unfortunately. :( Someone from an obscure-language Wikipedia got to have "User:Erik" across all Wikipedias. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 10:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Interstellar film poster
Could you direct me to where the consensus was made to use that particular poster. Thank you. Also, I just find it strange that a teaser poster would be used instead of the final theatrical one. QuasyBoy (talk)  14:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Sorry about that, apparently that discussion fell out of the talk page. I've put it back in at Talk:Interstellar (film)/Archive 1. If you want to revisit the consensus, you can start a new discussion on the talk page. A film poster does not have to be the final version, just one that reflects the film well (e.g., an ensemble film should not use an individual character poster), but I do see that the home media uses that astronaut image as the cover. You could make a case with that. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That is the reason why I used the one with McConaughey in the spacesuit, that is the poster image that is being used the most. Also it has the main credits of the film. Anyway, its no big deal, I'm fine with the spaceship (teaser) poster being used. QuasyBoy (talk)  15:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Deafness
Category:Deafness, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

America
Erik, I don't think you should be reverting the lede given the ongoing discussion and the concerns of several editors voiced on talk. Please undo your most recent edits and address the issues on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Revenant
Hi Erik, if you take a look at Punke's book, which the script is based on, you will see that there actually is a character called Andrew Henry and according to IMDb and other sources like e.g. that one specify that Gleeson is playing this role. As we have an article about this person I don't see the problem to link to it. In understand that you are looking for quality sources but honestly this discussion was easily avoidable. Cheers, --NiTen (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, ! The RTE link works well as a reliable source, so I've used that to cite his character's name. IMDb is generally not appropriate for sourcing, especially for upcoming films. Since the content is user-submitted, we should be able to verify it elsewhere. If we cannot (and there have been some occasions), then we would not include it. In this case, RTE is sufficient. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminator Genisys
The same phrasing "generally negative" appears in the lead as well. Perhaps you can apply more of your magic to make this consistent with the changes you made under critical response. I do believe a brief mention of what the aggregators determined should be mentioned in the lead in some capacity, though I could really care less on what the choice of words ends up being. If you have the time, great. If not, I'll take a stab at it later. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's tough to roll up the existing commentary into an even more concise summary without a similar disagreement coming up. I would personally just simplify the Los Angeles Times and TheWrap language further and leave it at that. Something like, "Critics found the story and the performances unsatisfactory, though they highlighted Schwarznegger's appearance." We may want to add more summary-level coverage to the article body to come up with other possible wordings. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I went with your suggestion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The "generally unfavorable" bit could still be an issue for the same reasons as in the article body. Maybe some kind of not-positive inversion? "Terminator Genisys was not positively received by critics, who thought..." That way it fairly indicates that positive reviews were in the minority. The degree of dislike/indifference can be left to the article body. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, I think that would be a beneficial change. Would you mind implementing it to help show there's some consensus behind the recent changes? Thanks again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Star Trek Beyond
Hi There. You put the marking there. Just curious, but wouldn't it be better to clean up that part of the article? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Always better, but I do not have extended time tonight to edit. But it needs to be recognized as a badly written section. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I'll work on it since I have time. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Take a look now to see if you agree with the changes. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , sorry, I saw that you had added the "Title" section that I took out! I think it is more appropriate in a "Marketing" section, especially if the title is explained. Just announcing the title is not generally that big of a deal, unless there is commentary around it.


 * The cutting-down makes the section better, though! I suppose my preferred approach is the inverted pyramid approach, where the most important information is shown first, treating the section as stand-alone. Unfortunately, most sections kind of jump into the beginning of the timeline, which was how I used to do it. Nowadays I think it is better to tell readers the key filmmakers at the beginning of the section, then delve into the background. For example, reading the "Production" section right now, it talks about Orci being director, and I was thrown off for a moment because I thought it was someone else. I had to look at the infobox to confirm that suspicion, and to keep reading to understand what happened. I think a better approach is to identify the director upfront, then mention "Before Lin, Orci was attached as director, but it didn't work out," or something to that effect. An example of where I do this is Walking with Dinosaurs (film). Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed film section tag
Can you expand on where you felt there was informal writing? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . In the template, I explained, "Too much indiscriminate detail and overly frequent use of dates." A couple of examples: "...a Linkedin profile for executive producer Fannie Pailloux stated..." and "In early August 2014, FilmDivider cited inside sources as describing the setting of the film..." For the latter, if this is confirmed and now in the "Premise" section, it does not need to be in "Production". There's overuse of "revealed" and "confirmed", which makes sentences less active. Also, almost every sentence in the section starts with a date, which is proseline writing. It's easy to tack on that kind of sentence one after another, but at some point, the details need to be re-shuffled and filtered to tell more of a story of how the film got made. This does not mean it cannot be chronological, but it needs to be more coherent as a whole. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Technical Credits
Hey I deleted the technical on the Martian page because it's something that appears on very few pages and makes the page look non uniform. I understand that there is nothing in the manual of style that states that it shouldn't be there but there's also nothing that says it should either. I think it makes Wikipedia look somewhat sloppy when there are ununiformed pages that seem to do their own thing. I could see maybe talking this over with Wikiproject film and maybe discussing the inclusion of an infobox for the info for the future, but right now it sticks out like a sore thumb. I just wanted to state my opinion the matter. --Deathawk (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the consensus is against adding new fields to the film infobox (due to size issues), so the additional crew members have to be relegated to the article body. I don't think it makes Wikipedia look sloppy; articles can vary in structure. For example, WP:FILMCAST #3 says that cast members can be presented in different ways. Yes, crew lists are uncommon, but it does not mean there is no place for them. We've been too accustomed to accepting the infobox as the only way to list such credits, where we should compare it more to the infobox's "Starring" field vs. the "Cast" section's cast list, with the former is a subset of the latter. I don't think we need crew lists everywhere, but for certain films where most of the crew members are blue-linked, it helps improve cross-navigation. WP:IBX also says, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." Since there are no guidelines to apply here, if you want, we can discuss it at Talk:The Martian (film). If other editors agree, we can remove it. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding updating Wikifilm Guidelines
We discussed the possibilities of making Wikifilm production guidelines before, but I'm trying to come up with brainstorms for what that should look like. Thought you might like to join the discussion over here--Deathawk (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Steve Jobs dab page
Erik - this dab page might be of interest to you: -Classicfilms (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Steve Jobs (disambiguation)


 * Hello! That would be a possible solution; you can mention it at WT:FILM. I am still mulling over how much disambiguation (in general, that is) would be warranted. There are not exactly a lot of film-clusters out there, much less those that share very similar titles. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the dab page to the discussion, though as I stated, I'm not entirely certain it is the best solution. I don't think that the feature films are confused with the documentaries, but there does seem to be confusion at times between the 2013 feature film Jobs and the upcoming Danny Boyle film. Maybe it would help to add dates to the titles - ie: Jobs (2013 film).
 * I also wanted to alert you to this note I left on the Steve Jobs (film) talk page:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Jobs_(film)
 * I am referring to this section:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(film)#Steve_Wozniak
 * I think that the entire section now needs to be rewritten since the topic is borderline WP:BLP - but I'm not entirely certain how it should be re-configured. It's also a bit of a big job - just wanted to put it on your radar if you have ideas or know someone who might have suggestions about how these two articles can be integrated into the section.-Classicfilms (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Erik - back to the dab question - I like the hatnotes that you placed on all of the pages. I'm now wondering if we should actually change the titles of these two articles: Jobs (film) ->Jobs (2013 film) and Steve Jobs (film) -> Steve Jobs (2015 film). I know these discussions tend to generate a lot of debate which is why I wanted to start on your talk page - do you think it is worth raising? -Classicfilms (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I was sort of thinking before. But would Steve Jobs (2015 film) be a good enough disambiguation from the documentary film also mainly title Steve Jobs from the same year? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...valid point. The more I think about it, though, your hatnotes indicate that down the road, there will be confusion among the films. The dab page also helps, but it is only listed on the Steve Jobs bio page and thus not everyone will see it. So, perhaps I can propose that we change ALL of the film titles like so:


 * Jobs (film) ->Jobs (2013 film)
 * Steve Jobs (film) -> Steve Jobs (2015 film)
 * Steve Jobs: The Lost Interview -> Steve Jobs: The Lost Interview (2012 documentary film)
 * Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine -> Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine (2015 documentary film)


 * The logic would thus be twofold - a) My concern that people confuse the 2013 Jobs film with the 2015 Steve Jobs film and b) your point that people may confuse the two 2015 films, one a documentary and one a feature film. If we thus make it routine that any film with the name "Steve Jobs" in it includes the date in the title, that will both standardize the article titles and essentially dissipate confusion. What do you think? -Classicfilms (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And just to add to the fun, check out the titles that don't yet have articles:

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Steve Jobs: Billion Dollar Hippie (2011 doc)
 * Steve Jobs: One Last Thing (2011 doc)
 * Fun indeed! I suspect that other editors would be reluctant to engage in so much disambiguation. Thinking about it, what about a set index article? They're all films with same or similar main titles and about the same subject. Other set index articles for films can be seen here: Category:Set indices on films. (Although something like Inferno (film) should not be one, being a disambiguation page instead.) If we do this, we can just link to the set index article in each hatnote, simplifying explanations and giving readers access to the universe of Steve Jobs films. How about it? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect! This is something new to me - a cross between a dab page and a list, it's excellent. And I'm glad to know something like this exists as well. Since you are more familiar with how to standardize an index like this - do you want to draw up a draft in your sandbox and I can take a look (by the way when I suggest things, it doesn't mean right now - we all have lives - just sometime). Thanks for helping out with these articles Erik, there is so so so much on this topic that an editor can feel overwhelmed. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not done a set index article before, but I learned about them a few years ago. If I have time today, I can put a simple one together. If not, sometime this weekend, probably Sunday. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sunday works for me - once you have the template up, I can also begin to add to it. I just want to make certain it is right since we already have:

and I am guessing it would replace the hatnotes? Or perhaps the hatnotes could be rewritten to contextualize it? I do think it is worth the effort, it is just a matter of figuring out how all the pieces fit together. Thanks Erik! You have throughout the years always been helpful. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Steve Jobs (disambiguation)
 * List of artistic depictions of Steve Jobs
 * The set index article would be a subset of List of artistic depictions of Steve Jobs, just that they share the same/similar main title. We can add a "See also" section to the set index article to guide readers to look up other articles about Steve Jobs that pretty much have all the names. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan...-Classicfilms (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think the best set index article title has to be Steve Jobs (film) since the majority of the films have "Steve Jobs" as the main title. Do you think that would work? We will have to move the current article to Steve Jobs (2015 film) after all, I think. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Erik! Sounds like a terrific idea. Go for it - set up a draft and I'll take a look. Quite busy in RL so signing off for tonight - will check back in tomorrow or the next. So no rush on your part. If we move the Steve Jobs film title, perhaps its worth it to see if other films need to be moved. I'm not attached to a particular title for any article - we simply need to figure out how to distinguish the films from one another. See you tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrific job Eric! Thanks for doing all of the leg-work. Not sure about this one -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artistic_depictions_of_Steve_Jobs
 * meaning that I added a see also on the top. If that is not correct, go ahead and fix it. Great work! -Classicfilms (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree with your re-shuffling, it actually lines up everything better. As for that list article, I'm not crazy about it in general. "Artistic" seems a bit unwarranted considering that it has biographies and documentaries listed in it. Probably should be called list of works about Steve Jobs or something. I don't know if a hatnote is needed there? The films at Steve Jobs (film) is a subset of the films there, so I don't think it has to be a two-way street. Do you think otherwise? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrific, good feedback. I forgot to change the link to the 2015 Steve Jobs film - which I just did. And I removed the hatnote. As for the title of the article, I don't care. After many years of working on film articles, I have learned two things: a. Editors like to add every little bit of media/text related to the primary subject and b. lists don't work with articles - therefore a list has to be made. Over the years, I've seen lists called different things. The current title is one that became popular for these kinds of lists a few years ago. But I am open to change. Here are some other possibilities:


 * Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc
 * List of artistic depictions of Mahatma Gandhi
 * Personally, I think we need to standardize titles for these kinds of lists (I'm sure there are others, but these are the two I know about). The word "artistic" itself is flexible - a documentary can be a work of art depending upon form. I do agree about histories and biographies. So the real question becomes, how do we title these articles, and does it matter if there is variation in title? That being said, move it to any title that you want and make any changes that you want. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also just re-edited this page - Steve Jobs (disambiguation) - so that we are not repeating information. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixing your old sig
I tried to follow a link in an old discussion from your old sig and got this. Is there any reason it shouldn't be a redirect to User talk:Erik II? Thanks, it was bothering me. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , hope you're well! I went ahead and added a template. I was not sure about doing that with User:Erik in the first place, but since no one has complained since that addition, I did the same for the user talk page. Unless you think it should be a full redirect despite "User:Erik" now belonging to someone else? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that occurred to me five seconds after pressing "save page". In any case, it seems to me that given this set of circumstances, your best bet is to remove the tag you added and submit a bot job that will modify your old sig with internal links to preserve the original edit. The change can be made easily with AWB running by itself.  It should change "Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me)" to "Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me)". Is there another way? Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I am kinda-sorta hoping to get it back at some point. From what I recall, looking into the whole usurping business, the editor had not edited since 2013. I might figure out a way to get it back sometime soon. So I don't want to change all the links just yet! Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In that case, leave the tag. I'm sorry you had to go through that bureaucratic nightmare.  Is there anything we can do to speed the process up? Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have not looked into it too much. This shows the usurper's main account last editing in August 2014 and less than 250 edits total since August 2010. I was thinking about letting time go by to make a stronger case for re-usurping later, since I plan to continue editing. I also thought about trying to contact that editor and seeing if he could agree to a transfer back, based on his very low use. What do you think? Any insight you have about the process? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So a year has passed since the usurpation, and the user has never used en even though you had somewhere around 70,000 edits at the time? Something isn't right. Do you have to file a new report at Changing username/Assistance?  I'll ping Anna Frodesiak to see if she has any insight.  She loves puzzles. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, for some reason, the frr.wikipedia.org account was apparently more qualified than mine. (Certainly not by duration or edit count!) I'd be interested in hearing what Anna has to say, then I'll consider filing a new report. Thanks, Viriditas! Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If there's been no contact, then I either screwed up the ping-sig procedure or it could have got lost in an ocean of ping notifications on her end. Try contacting her on her talk page with a brief message and a link to this or any relevant discussion.  There are a lot of admins who watch that page and you might find one or two who can escalate matters.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will do that. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Note to self, linking to diff for following up. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

, much appreciated for the push to look into restoring my original handle! Very glad to be back. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I just saw that you have your former username back (yes, your user page/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist). Congratulations. Flyer22 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Gravity
i did not remove content from gravity film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.92.145 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, this shows that someone under your IP address removed content from Gravity (film) back in November 2013. If this is not you, no worries! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Birdman redux
Hi. I just signed on as a GA reviewer for Birdman (film), not being aware of the problematic history of this article. I was wondering if you could keep an eye on things (or take a quick look at the current version). No hurry on this. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, quick question for you: I'm trying to wrap up the Birdman review (but I've been hampered by less time on Wikipedia) and I'm wondering, should there be both a "cast" and a "casting" section? Any ideas? It seems redundant to me. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think there can be both, but it depends on the coverage available. Most articles I've done do not have enough coverage to warrant a "Casting" subsection, instead either being woven into the "Production" section or placed beneath the "Cast" section's list of actors and roles. (I personally have stopped creating "fat" or detailed bulleted items for each actor and role since it can be very uneven for films outside superhero ones.)
 * For Birdman, the "Casting" subsection seems like a good amount of detail. I don't think it's an issue to have a simple cast list in the "Cast" section and prose in the "Casting" subsection. Maybe a note in "Cast" with an anchor link to that subsection? One thing I am not crazy about is simple cast lists that create extraneous white space to the right. I prefer to do multiple columns or at least have actor images in the "Cast" section to use the white space better. Maybe the Keaton image could be moved to that section, and a crew member's image (maybe the director himself) could be used in the "Production" section instead? Hope some of this helps! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Help
I'm trying to clean up the references at Draft:Black Panther (film). I believe you were the original author of some of the older content. There is one reference titled "A comics milestone from the action-filled universe of superheroes come new characters, and a new diversity", attributed to Leonard Pitts Jr. and dated March 27, 1994 but there is no source. Do you remember where you found this article?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , am checking now. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , do you still have HighBeam access that you can use to help here? We are trying to find the work for the above citation. I forgot to include it back in 2007, and I recall using newspaper databases to compile that information. Can't find anything via Google. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, searched, wasn't from HighBeam. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I can't get outright confirmation, but it is probably the Miami Herald per this saying Pitts has been with them since 1991. It could also be the Chicago Tribune... Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I just contacted the Herald, hopefully they'll respond. Thanks for the help.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was the Miami Herald, it appeared on Page J1, the Living section, on that date.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, fast response! Glad you know what it is now. Crazy that my sloppiness makes an impact so many years later... :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No prob, I'm actually more proud that we have such a complete history in the first place. You should be commended.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad to contribute! :) Back when I had access to all these sweet newspaper databases... I've signed up for some database access via The Wikipedia Library, so we'll see if I can get anywhere back to these days. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Erik. Just want to echo Triiiple's thanks for helping with the info originally. Also, since Triiiple started some reworking of the refs, is there any chance (with your database access), we can get any online versions of the early development content? I know there is nothing wrong with offline sources, but was wondering if we could supplement what we have, with online versions. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I do not have that database access anymore. I suspect that most of these citations without links probably will not have them, unless some periodicals provided their archives online. You can search for the authors and titles (or keywords) via Google and other search engines to try to find them. You can use the date range to try to narrow it down. Other than that, not sure how to research to get links. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, i would really like to thank you for your support of my article. Blisspop (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I find the topic notable, but the article needs to reflect that with real-world context. That's why I highlighted passages that did that, as opposed to those that just described the general details of the organization as presented in the film. Do you think you can revise the article to have that real-world context? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ill be happy to do that.If you send me links to the websites ill add references and new material in a jiffy.
 * Blisspop (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I did not look for websites on purpose since I find that books more strongly establish notability (as they go more into depth about various aspects of a given film, unlike an online article). You can use this tool to create references based on these links to Google Books and update the article to have the real-world context. I personally would like to see the outcome of the AfD before contributing to the article. The AfD outcome should be based on the topic's notability, not the article structure or content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , the improvement needs to be more than only including inline citations. You need to include the content that come from these references. You could do something like start a new section called "Historical comparisons" and mention what each source has compared the RDA to. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ok I'll add that.Blisspop (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , thank you! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

here ya go...
It was deleted and per our discussion and the consensus for userfication, I userfied it to you with history at User:Erik/workspace/Resources Development Administration. Do what is necessary and good luck,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , thank you. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

On the Whitewashing in movies page

 * Main article: List of films featuring whitewashed roles

Dear mister Erik

Please do not undo my changes on that page which boycots the objective essence of Wikipedia, by bringing in Social Justice Warriors on this site, meant for objective information, and not to spread paranoid racist and blaguant lies from Tumblr.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgoem (talk • contribs) 11:55, October 10, 2015‎


 * , I can provide a response on how covering the topic is in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, if you would like one. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome!

 * Main article: Dump months

Yes, I put a lot of time and research into that. I hope eventually to get it to FA and I appreciate Cirt's review very much and will be making changes this coming week. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Range 15
Erik, I would appreciate any feedback for shaping the article. I have been trying to get it as close as possible to the film articles but I have had some challenges, mostly in figuring out the coding and having the time to do the updates. - Kris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfhound98 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! We can discuss at Talk:Range 15. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe
Hi, any chance you could give this a review at Peer review/Marilyn Monroe/archive1? A core article if ever there was one which really needs a good review.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars writing credits
Lucas is credited with "based on: characters created by" for Force Awakens. They never put that on poster billing, but it is one of those things that is just a given (like Jurassic World or Indiana Jones 4). TropicAces (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , then it can be verified with ease? Forgive me, I'm not going to follow the film article anymore! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll try and find an article or two that mentions it, sure! TropicAces (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)tropicAces


 * Thanks! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your kind words about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, in your comments at Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise.

A couple updates:

1. The discussion closed as Keep.

2. The Wikipedia article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise is now rated Good Article quality.

Thanks again ever so much for acknowledging my efforts to improve the Quality of articles on Wikipedia in this manner.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC) 
 * You're welcome! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

More on Steve Jobs
Hi Erik, I left the following note on a DAB admin page and mentioned you - I tried to use wikimarkup to alert you, but for some reason it didn't work. What is the short cut for alerting another editor? Here is the URL for the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BD2412#Steve_Jobs_DAB_question Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! You can use the ul template and write it like this: . Will check in to see what the editor says unless I am pinged. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Will keep you posted. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Erik - I won't revert your edits on the Steve Jobs film article - but the film is a work of fiction that uses some real events and Sorkin himself has gone on the record to say so. I'm not certain how the Wikipedia can sort that out but somehow it should be apparent in the article. Here is one interview with Sorkin:
 * http://www.wired.com/2015/10/aaron-sorkin-turning-steve-jobs-film-icon/
 * I'm posting this on your talk page rather than the article page because I didn't want to turn it into a full fledged debate -- just more of an fyi. All the best, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I started a discussion on the article's talk page. I completely understand where you're coming from. I read this earlier this week, for example. But as I mentioned at the discussion, the label is predominant. It does not mean the label cannot be challenged, but it needs more of an explanation in response to that. Biographical movies, as the sources say, are rarely historically accurate, so the nature of each film's fidelity to history, and what artistic license was taken, can be discussed in full context. I think it would be misleading not to say biopic in the opening sentence, but it can be followed up later in the lead section if the debate is prominent enough (and appears to be). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure Erik - I will reply on the article talk page and will move the URL there. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

San Andreas
You reverted my comments about San Andreas! So if you didn't think they were appropriate for the section then why not make a new section? Because the film is scientifically inaccurate and in mine and many other scientists opinion a waste of resources. So go ahead and make a new section called "Scientific Accuracy." That way I would have more respect for film critics who praise crap films and rip good ones to shreds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Geologist (talk • contribs) 08:41, October 28, 2015


 * , I reverted you per WP:NOTAFORUM. Your comment was only about the film and nothing about what could be done about it in the Wikipedia article. If you think the article should have a "Scientific accuracy" section, then that can be stated. There is definitely precedent for such sections, and I doubt anyone would challenge that. There are guidelines at WP:FILMSCI about taking this approach. Do you want to go back to the article's talk page and talk about putting together such a section? After I reverted, I was curious about what had been written about the film's scientific accuracy, and I found numerous results on the first page of search results. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Could use your expertise re Rotten Tomatoes
Mentioned you at Talk:Fifty Shades of Grey/GA1.

Could use your expertise there on the Rotten Tomatoes consensus, and its use (or apparent lack thereof, so far, in the article) as a wider metric.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I won't be on the rest of the day due to Halloween, but sadly enough, I have already been involved with a discussion about that film's critical reception in the past. (Maybe that's why you pinged me?) See Talk:Fifty Shades of Grey (film) where I listed some sources saying what critics collectively thought, but it appears the discussion progressed beyond my involvement. Still, a lot of sources that could be applied to the book article's film adaptation section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that prior discussion, actually, but any insight or comments you could provide, at above link about the book, would be appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia
Erik,

At Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia - a user has shown up to question whether this documentary should be called a "film", injecting their own personal opinions and POV about its broadcast and violating No Original Research instead of relying upon sources to support their arguments -- doubting the fair use rationale of a quite detailed image rationale for what is basically a promotional film poster, and more.

Really could use your input and advice and comment on this one,.

For articles I write and improve on Wikipedia, I try very hard to make sure that every single fact and indeed every single sentence is backed up to reliable sources and cited with in-line citations.

I'm not as comfortable debating with someone on the talk page who refuses to back up their POV with cited sources, simply insisting, "this is how it should be, because I know it to be true", kind of attitude, you know what I mean?

Your film expertise and insight here would be most helpful.

Thank you Erik,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The Martian archive
Hi,

I noticed you're the one who archived The Martian's talk page. However, if I'm not mistaken that was a manual edit.

Could you set up the bot to do this automatically? Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I add archiving parameters but am not sure if they will work. Most talk pages are not busy enough to warrant automatic archiving, IMO. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I come from the Gravity film talk page myself, which got pretty busy back in the day :) CapnZapp (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Resource donation
Hello, Erik! It's been a while, I know. I have an offer which maybe you or someone else at WP Film could take up. I just recently moved house, and have been going through my magazines. I was planning on throwing a bunch out, but I figured that some of them might have some good research value to the WikiProject, especially for editors interested in expanding the Production sections of more recent films. In short, I have several years worth of physical copies of the ICG Magazine (International Cinematographers Guild). While I'm aware that some of the articles are online, IIRC most of them are not. Would you or anyone else in the project have any interest in taking these off my hands? They could either be picked up (I live in Southern California) or mailed (if the person receiving is willing to cover minimal shipping costs). Thoughts? Feel free to circulate this offer openly amongst the project, but I wanted to give you the first crack at it, considering the excellent job you have done over the years. Hope you are well! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , wow, great to hear from you! I am unfortunately not in that region and probably would not leverage ICG Magazine for the kinds of articles I've done. You should definitely post at WT:FILM to see who else wants these issues. :) I am very well and hope you are too! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

 * , thank you! I wish you the same. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You probably don't remember me but I was active a lot in 2007/2008.
Don't worry, I won't act the same way I did in early 2012, this time I'm back to help the website out.

I do remember that we used to be good friends back in 2007/2008. I hope we still can be good friends now. So yeah. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! If you have any questions about any aspects of film articles nowadays, feel free to ask. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Batman & Robin (film)#critical reaction
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Batman & Robin (film). Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been almost a week now since I returned, so far do you think I'm a good contributor here on Wikipedia?
I want your honest thoughts. And if I do something wrong you should point it out.

I sure hope I have become a better editor than I was in 2007. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Help editing Viacom's page
Hi Erik-- I'm new to Wiki and was hoping to get your help making a few changes to the Viacom page. In the spirit of transparency, I do work for Viacom but noticed a few inaccurate facts on our page I'd like to correct ,starting with how the company was founded. Could I send you a few of my proposed changes for your review? Thanks VIATJ (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . You can make a request with the Request edit template on Talk:Viacom. You may also want to ping User:Ianmacm, who has edited the article from 2009 to 2015. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation on a proposal
You are invited to the MOS/Film discussion here, regarding about release dates in year in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:ANIME
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , happy holidays to you and yours as well! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive
Eric

I have no idea how this talk page works

Mulholland Drive was completely decoded Jan 2015

http://plisskensmovies.blogspot.co.nz/2015_01_01_archive.html

regards

Plissken

plisskenboon@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.68.19 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Erik as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times and wonderful films to watch. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to an RfC
This is a neutral notice for you to join an RfC at Star Wars: The Force Awakens given your work at the Film project. The RfC is regarding if a title including "Episode VII" should be considered an alternate title to the film. The RfC can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I Origins
I just noticed that you created the stub for I Origins. 'Tis is nice film with an interesting theme (spirituality/athiesm and all that) and ranks amongst my favorites. Many many thanks for that. Dschslava (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I never got around to seeing it! I did see Another Earth, which had impressed me enough to follow Mike Cahill's career and create a stub at the time. There's just too many movies nowadays to watch. :) I will have to bump it up my list! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Erik!


Happy New Year! Erik, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Dschslava (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message


 * Happy New Year to you too! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Dschslava (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Erik!


Happy New Year! Erik, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 01:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Doctor Strange (film)
Hi. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion on the film's talk page? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, thanks for the reply. I had that question in mind, I am currently expanding Theeb film... Would you be interested in assisting in expanding it and/or check for any errors I made? Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! I can provide some feedback on researching that film. One major tool I use are advanced search operators in Google. For example, Googling Naji Abu Nowar Theeb site:variety.com shows results from that website like this. You can change the domain to others to look for possible sources from each website. The article looks well-detailed. (Pleased to see references attached to the awards, too! Not all articles do this.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I know about these tools... I am planning to expand it fivefold for DYK. The only problem I am finding is that each source seems to mention a side of what I need to write in article and so, to collect all these informations from multiple sources tends to be slightly overwhelming. Any tips for this issue? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean that the information is too spread out in bits? Unfortunately, that can be a challenge since news articles won't be too in-depth. Not sure what kind of tip you want, but one thing I do is create "References to use" sections on talk pages so if I find something and don't have time to implement it, I'll just add the link there. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, now I only need to expand the article. Cheers Makeandtoss (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC
pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates -- Moxy (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Martian
It is a science-fiction fantasy film http://www.metronews.ca/views/in-focus-richard-crouse/2015/10/01/space-fantasy-film-gets-realistic-with-the-martian.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:e68:542d:e235:54e0:9c8f:2840:35e2 (talk • contribs) 14:28, January 25, 2016‎


 * The Martian is called a science fiction film across multiple sources. Per WP:DUE, this is the most appropriate genre label to apply. The above source is a rarity, and the title is inconsistent with the article body (space fantasy vs. space drama), so it is hard to take credibly. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC) http://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/841700/ http://kinoprofi.net/5571-marsian-2015.html It's a fantasy film, dude, without any doubt. Just watch it carefully and analyze the events. You can translate Russian into English by google translator. By the way, if you try to reset my p. again, i will show you mine. So, be cool and it's time to sleep to little kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzmaster1 (talk • contribs) 14:46, January 25, 2016‎

Manchester by the Sea
I changed the redirect per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The town has hyphens; the film doesn't.—  Film Fan  15:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if that applies. WP:SMALLDETAILS is more about putting the extra effort to get to where you want to go. For example, if a term is a common noun, but there is a work based on that noun, a reader could search the term in title case to bypass the noun's article and get to the work's article. For example, hall pass vs. Hall Pass. However, if someone searches the "lazy" way, using just lowercase and no symbols, then it shouldn't be surprising for them to land on the more generic article. In this particular case, the film's title is directly derived from the town's name. If some kind of flair was added to the film's title, I would support the redirect, but I find this to be a kind of regression that shouldn't put readers at the film's article just because they didn't make the effort to include dashes. We can discuss this further on one of the talk pages if you want. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll bring it up again around the theatrical release. —  Film Fan  17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth, Michael and Marlon edits
The film is in post production, so it has been shot but hasn't aired.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5320014/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traciediamond (talk • contribs) 13:51, January 28, 2016‎


 * Thanks! I stand corrected. I had assumed that it was casting news that was reported. I'm fine with including it now, and I've added a reference. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of films featuring fictional films


Hello, Erik. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "List of films featuring fictional films".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Fuddle (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up vandalism and some other stuff
I've been trying to clean up the edits by, an IP account that just yesterday came off a 6 month block for vandalism. I admit my edits have been a bit hasty in the past day or two, as I'm really overworked in trying to deal with all this disruption going through my watchlist. I posted a little about it on WT:FILM. Anyway, I thought I identified the countries in Walking with Dinosaurs (film) correctly – did I mess up? The BFI website seems to be experiencing trouble, so I used an archived copy of the page.

p.s. Ever thought about running for admin? It'd be nice to have someone else beside Cyphoidbomb that I could hassle when dealing with this stuff. I can't imagine anyone would oppose you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, hope you're doing well! :) I hate these kinds of serial edits, shifting around credits in a bizarre manner. Hopefully it will be a longer block. As for Walking for Dinosaurs, are you referring to the co-production sentence? I see now that BFI identifies India (I was accustomed to seeing only the other three), so I am fine with that in the infobox. Not sure if I am crazy about that sentence, seems like it would be better to add labels like "Australia-based" and "India-based", perhaps. That way, readers can have the context rather than saying it is a co-production between four countries.


 * As for running for admin, I've thought about it, but I find the gauntlet rather unappealing. I find that I'm usually involved with different debates and disputes, so I'm not sure if having the tools would help me that much. I would probably want to go through admin school first, but I find myself more motivated by content-building for topics of personal interest. (Nice way to learn about films and also share that knowledge, you know?) Surely Cyphoidbomb isn't the only admin out there who works on films too? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you can you take out that co-production sentence if you want. I mostly wanted to discourage more unsourced tinkering in the infobox.  I think RfA has become a bit less of a gauntlet lately, but it will probably never be a pleasant experience.  I think we've got a few film-oriented admins, but it never hurts to have more!  Ah, maybe I'll run some day if I can't convince anyone else.  But, yeah, I like working on content, too.  For me, it's often a matter of trying to document the world of low-budget exploitation films.  Nobody else is going to create an article on Bloodsuckers from Outer Space.  I spent my first six years on Wikipedia thinking to myself, "Why is this article missing?"  It took a while, but my to-do list is shrinking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, my to-do list is growing! :) As you may have noticed, I like to create list articles to promote cross-navigation, and there's no shortage of lists to write about. (I admit, after seeing The Revenant, I want to write an article listing films featuring bears...) I have not made a Good or Featured Article effort in a long time, the latter mainly because most people browse Wikipedia via mobile now. So I'm less motivated to get a FA on the Main Page! I suppose I like to do articles on recent films since I know that they'll get a lot of attention upfront, and list articles because they can be reached from all kinds of individual film articles. Of course, I feel like I never have time to do all of it... "real life" tends to be more of a priority in many ways. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there's one place where Wikipedia has infinite room to grow, it's in media coverage. The WMF has been talking lately about trying to focus on mobile users, and that was one of the topics at 2016 Strategy.  Might be worth checking out if you're interested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the other thing about running for admin; I've focused so much on films that I am not as experienced with other topics (and as a result am more cautious in my edits in these), so I sort of assume that will be held against me. I find WikiProject Film to be more of a community than Wikipedia at large since I actually cross paths with you and others more often. :) As for mobile, thankfully page hits have not changed, and films' Wikipedia articles tend to be on the top of search results. I think one key item regarding mobile and film articles is to ensure good lead sections. I can't imagine most people reading entire film articles in one sitting. As a result, I'm trying to be better about having the lead section summarize the article body adequately. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of People Like Us, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Llywelyn II   12:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)