User talk:Erik/Archive 31

Nomination of List of films featuring whitewashed roles for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films featuring whitewashed roles 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 whitewashed roles 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. JDDJS (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was just looking at this list and surprised by the omission of Scarface (1983 film), where Al Pacino, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Paul Shenar,  Robert Loggia and F. Murray Abraham all play Latino characters. Have you seen any sources describing it as whitewashed? I am having trouble locating any.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I feel like I saw that somewhere. Maybe it is in one of the links in the "References to use" section in the talk page? There are a number of films I have not gotten around to including. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * John Oliver included it in his bit on the most recent Last Week Tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Revenant
Those isolated comments you comment on I have read carefully and they do not appear to be a review of the film (wrong section). Perhaps they belong on the source's personal bio page as personal opinion and anyone can move them there. When I tried to find any follow up on this personal opinion of his, there was none in the USA press, Australia press, or British press. It looked like a local story picked up in the Canadian press about a Canadian actor's opinion. No problem if you want to move it to that actor's bio page. It was not a revieew of the film however, and does not appear to belong to the Review section for the film. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that it does not count as a review and is more outside it. But I did not find not being covered in USA, UK, or AU press a reason to remove it. Perhaps other reasons, but not that one. We have to remember to counter systemic bias where feasible. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are agreeing that it does not count as a review, then I can restate what I meant to say. I left out the words "...and Canada" from the list of countries. In other words, since no-one had a follow up on the original story, not even Canada, then it should not be seen as notable. It can still go into the DePuis biography article if you want it there. Since there was no follow-up anywhere to the story, including Canada, it seems like the isolated notice should be moved out of The Revenant article since it is not a review. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

WARNING
Please do not delete sourced content, as you did at List of giant-monster films. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add further references to the article if you wish. Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input!
Wanted to thank you for weighing in at Talk:List of giant-monster films‎. I think other opinions were sorely needed. DonIago (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The next time you visit, remember that the talk page still has not reached a consensus, and you have no authority to delete the entire list like you both repeatedly did today. Please don't make the same mistake in the future, and feel free to contribute further to the page instead of giving orders. You said it would just take a jiffy, right? So it shouldn't be a problem, you two have fun! I look forward to seeing your contributions. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing
You can't just produce a list of films in this article as if it is a matter of fact that they "whitewashed". The somewhat derogatory term is essentially only the opinion of the sources. So we need to say what qualifies the films to be on this list; that they have been accused of whitewashing. Whether the accusation is valid, fact or unfair is not for Wikipedia to suggest, but for the reader to decide. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , I restored wording that existed before. See WP:ALLEGED for why "accused" does not work. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But WP:ALLEGED says; "although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to be related to criminal behavior. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a reference for use if you're interested.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a very good read! Thanks for sharing. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi
It's been a while since we last talked. I need you to look at the talk page of a A New Hope. These people keep trying to cancel out the fact that it was re-titled only four years after it's release. We might have another problem there.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

over here--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"Boogie Nights" Unsourced Material
Hey, Erik...

Saw your nick associated with the "Boogie Nights" talk page. I'm a complete noob when it comes to editing Wikipedia, so I thought I'd check in with you.

I noticed some items in the Unsourced material section of the Talk Page that I know to be factual. I'm not sure how to source them, though. For example,

"The night club scenes were filmed at The Country Club located in Reseda, California." What type of sourcing would be required here? Something like this article?

"The events in the film take place between 1977 and 1984." This is clear from the film/script. How would that be cited?

'''The opening scene is nearly three minutes long without a cut, and shows most of the characters in the film, ending with a shot of young Eddie Adams (the future Dirk Diggler). At the end of the movie, there is a similar long scene without a cut showing most of the characters, right before the last scene with Dirk in his dressing room. Another long, single take sequence that fleshes out many characters takes place during the first party upon Eddie's arrival to porn as the future Dirk Diggler.''' This is obvious watching the film. What sort of sourcing is required in situations like this?

There is an image of Elliott Gould that appears three times in the film (one of them is on the wall of the porno set during Maurice's big scene). This is discussed by PTA in his commentary track over the "Deleted Scenes" on the DVD/Blu-ray.

'''On the DVD, there is an option to view color bars. Doing so reveals an Easter egg. The color bars fade after a few seconds and reveal a gag take of Bob Ridgley presenting an award as the Colonel James and test footage of Mark Wahlberg wearing the prosthetic penis.''' Again, factual...but how would it be cited?

Ron Jeremy was a consultant for the movie (revealed this in interview on 2/13/07 KISSFM Milwaukee).  He's also listed as such in the credit crawl at the end of the film.

I don't think any of these will make or break the article page for the film, but I know they're factual and it would be nice to have them on the page.

Cheers,  ScottWilberfan (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

A24
Hi! I remember a few months ago you had a discussion on the A24 Films article, and just wanted to ask you a question, a logo section was added to the article, but I don't think it's that relevant to the article, what do you think? :) Vmars22 (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , it does not appear that the content is backed by reliable sources. Skimming search results, I don't see anything that really talks about it. I would support its removal. There are other elements of the company that are verifiably worth writing about. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there! I'm planning on removing it, should I? I wanted to get your opinion again. Vmars22 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Total Recall
I understand the reversion for the remake, but why remove the Phil Dick reference? Gil gosseyn (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , I've restored the mention but instead at the front of the sentence. I think putting it after the original sentence made it seem like an afterthought. Hope you're good with the way it's placed now. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me. Thank you.Gil gosseyn (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. 20:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Work
You are a real piece of work, you know that right? Always misinterpreting my objection to having 12 Years a Slave on your crappy white savior narrative in film article. Always threatening to rename that article just to justify having films such as 12 Years a Slave on there whenever someone points out that film shouldn't be on that list. Always responding to the numerous criticisms of how the vast majority of the article's sources comes from op-ed pieces from progressive news sites with claims to "improve" it by making the article based on one source that you most likely only read the preview of via Google Books... 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises reception introduction
Erik, will you please take a look at the discussion at Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises. I would like to get your opinion/advice, especially on covering critical appraisals beyond the British/American sphere, which I feel Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are too dependent on. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film). Since you had some involvement with the Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Unsourced" tag
Wikipedia has a tag called "citation needed."

If you think a statement in an article needs a citation, add that tag to the statement rather than deleting text. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why can you not provide sourced content in the first place? You have experience; you are not just a novice adding content without knowledge of policies and guidelines. Also, it is an especially contentious topic, meaning that the material is likely to be challenged and needs to be clearly verified. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of White savior narrative in film for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White savior narrative in film 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/White savior narrative in film& 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. Froglich (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate
Your most recent deletion of material stated the following: "Revert original research; third opinion on talk page agrees it is OR. " In fact, the talk page in question did not state that.

A sentence saying "sources disagree" which is followed immediately by citations of sources disagreeing is not original research. I assume that a lot of Wikipedians have been criticizing you as posting original research. That does not mean that every single sentence in an article is OR. Encyclopedia articles do have topic sentences and summarize material. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Darth Vader
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Claim of consensus
Please assume good faith. I believed that consensus was against the edit I reverted, because I can identify at the very least three reverts of the same type in the very recent past.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film)&diff=751743770&oldid=751742481
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film)&diff=751133387&oldid=751131436
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film)&diff=751538106&oldid=751532486
 * Elizium23 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See the film article's talk page. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Film box office terminology
Erik - I understand that you are an experienced editor, particularly when it comes to movie pages, but I do have to say that the way you have responded to my legitimate concerns about terminology on pages that report box office data has been very disappointing (and I am being polite, here). The debate on the talk pages where I have raised this is as yet unfinished, yet rather than query my edits on my own talk page, as I would have expected, you went straight ahead and cited my username in a topic you started on an entirely different talk page - clearly intended to prompt other editors to take an interest in my edits. A day later, when no-one else took your bait, you have yourself been through the handful of movie sites that I edited yesterday, before your challenge, and reverted my edits - despite your having accepted yourself on the MoS:film page that my alternative terms are no less appropriate than your own preferred. I would have expected you to have raised these matters with me first, and expected you to wait until our discussion on the talk pages has concluded (as I have, since your challenge yesterday), before escalating this into an edit war? IanB2 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC) IanB2 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Like you said, the debate is yet unfinished, so why unilaterally take action? I reverted to the status quo. Maybe the discussion concludes in a consensus to lock onto one word to use everywhere (and it may not be "countries" but "regions" or "markets"), or a consensus that articles can be left well alone with the terms as they are, per MOS:RETAIN. In contrast, replacing "North America" has zero opposition, both in present discussion and in past discussions (despite not being formalized in the MOS until now). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Following your challenge I am happy to wait for the discussion to conclude. You may well be right that an alternative term, such as 'markets', is the most suitable.  It does remain my view, however, that naming me in a separate post on the film discussion page without posting on my talk page first, and then mass-reverting a batch of my edits, isn't in the collaborative spirit that I would have expected from such an experienced editor (and particularly from one who has claimed, in a publicised interview, "I personally strive to revert as little as possible"). Kind regards.IanB2 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit notice
Erik, do you care to comment on the revised wording of the proposed edit notice at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Whitewashing in film per your suggestion? Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, was on travel for the holidays recently. I've commented. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry
, happy holidays to you as well! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays
, we've known each other over ten years now, going all the way back to all these Batman movie article discussions. :) Our habits may have changed, but crazy to think we're still on this website. Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you too! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

, merry belated Christmas to you, and a Happy New Year as well! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Erik!


Happy New Year! Erik, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

, Happy New Year to you as well! I wish you a great 2017. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick little note
Hey Erik! Just wanted to let know, Draft:Black Panther (film) is just about to be moved into the mainspace any day now. Thought you'd might like to know and see the progress it has made, as you had mentioned you had added a bunch of print sources regarding a film on the character to Black Panther (comics) more than 10 years ago. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's great news! It's quite a well-developed article to deploy. Hope the movie is as great too! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, after it was formally announced in October 2014, the information slowly but surely came in to make the draft what it is now. Hoping the film is great as well! The cast is phenomenal, with speculation at the moment feeling it could be the first MCU film to get serious Oscar considerations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , Oscar considerations would be something! Coogler's last two films are fantastic. Here's to hoping for a great screenplay for Black Panther to make it a contender. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Sorry to bother you with this drama, but you were reported to WP:ANEW by Mauro Lanari. You can probably just ignore this if you want. I'm only alerting you because it's mandated by the noticeboard, and he didn't do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Episode VIII
Hi Erik. I noticed that you removed the statement that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is also known as Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi. I'm not sure about this, since the wide majority of the sources in the article do mention the phrase "Episode VIII". Of course, most of them were published before the title The Last Jedi was announced, but I feel inclined to keep "Episode VIII" in the lead, since it appears to be a longstanding franchise convention to label these films as "episodes". Mz7 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , can you find a source confirming the full alternative title? We can't just mash up the working title with the official one. I couldn't find one, and we shouldn't make that assumption. We should review The Force Awakens in the same vein too. Both of these movies have a slightly different titling approach than past trilogies. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall, when I watched The Force Awakens, that the phrase "Episode VII" appeared during the opening crawl. As a result, I was under the impression until you mentioned it that the phrases "Episode VII" and "Episode VIII" were truly alternative names for the films, not your standard idea of a "working title". I do see where you are coming from, however, and I'll do some looking. Mz7 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . So you are both aware, the very lengthy discussion regarding including "(also known as Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens)" at The Force Awakens can be found here (yes the whole archive is on the one discussion). I was always of the mindset, that despite it being included in the opening crawl, Force Awakens is not known as "Episode VII – The Force Awakens" as the prequels were in this styling. The refs backed it up, but other very strongly did not feel this way. I also feel similarly now about the recently revealed "The Last Jedi" and would be willing to venture into another debate regarding it if you both felt it should/shouldn't be included in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I did not know about that discussion, but I am not surprised! :-P I started a discussion on the article's talk page here: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi where you can weigh in so everyone can see. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Erik I have a reasonable proposal
I think we should start massively adding synopsis sections to all films for people that want to know what the film is about without spoilers. Valoem  talk  contrib  20:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Most films articles already contain a premise in the lead section. Expanding beyond that will no doubt spoil something for somebody.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I agree with here. Maybe you could make the case to state that a lead section for a film article should explain the plot in just one or two sentences? I don't think we require it, but it should be done especially since the 700-word plot summary is nearly universal. You can do that at WT:MOSFILM. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Erik. I hope that you are well and that your 2017 is off to a good start. please see WP:SPOILER for the content guideline about this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think including the premise in the lead section does not go against WP:SPOILER. It says that an encyclopedic purpose needs to be served to include spoilers. Per WP:PLOT, we can have a concise plot summary to explain the full context of the film (including spoilers). Same with the article body, where if something that happens in the film is explained by reliable sources. For the lead section, we want to summarize the article body, and that includes the plot summary. I would not necessarily say that we should require premises to be spoiler-free, but more like avoiding "lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions" which ultimately means focusing on the broad strokes of the story. If the ending of a film has encyclopedic purpose, then we should not avoid discussing it in the lead section, but perhaps have it later in the section and tied with a reasonable lead-in. To use an example, The Sixth Sense (not a Good or Featured Article) has in the first paragraph, " The film tells the story of Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment), a troubled, isolated boy who is able to see and talk to the dead, and an equally troubled child psychologist (Bruce Willis) who tries to help him." This does not spoil the film. In an ideally developed article, the lead section could plausibly discuss the twist ending in a third or fourth paragraph, introducing it as such (e.g., "Audiences and critics commended the twist ending that revealed...") and go in depth about it. That is my preliminary thinking about how to structure plot details into something that serves the encyclopedia best, especially for the lead section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There's already some verbage about this in WP:FILMLEAD: "If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise." Perhaps it could be reworded to reinforce the suggestion and with more specific guidance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea., do you want to propose that? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I would like this idea, but I do not want the removal of the plot section I think its important to people would be interested know what a film is about a later after watching read the plot section for details is they have confusions, how would I start this? Valoem  talk  contrib  03:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Films with fictional films
Hi Erik. For info, Mulholland Drive has the fictional film The Sylvia North Story as a plot-line within the main film.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Lugnuts, thanks! I was focusing on lists for the time being, but it would be great to have individual entries once lists justify the topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

hi
Hi Erik See you updated the Mary Zophres page I updated. I also love film and the Oscars. Nice to meet a fellow editor who also does :) TC99 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, ! Yes, I have done some work on it in the past. Before I did that, it looked like this. Zophres has had a really good career arc so far! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow! I wonder if she will win. Colleen Atwood will provide some serious competition TC99 (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have not had a chance to see Fantastic Beasts yet! I missed it in theaters. I guess I will have to see the featured costumes when the Oscars air. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Apt Pupil
I thought I found that at TCMDb, but I could be misremembering. It's definitely on IMDb, but I thought I checked the other to confirm. --- The Old Jacobite   The '45 19:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I guess you can include it. What I mentioned in the edit summary was a recollection of routine IP edits adding StudioCanal or some variation of it to film articles even though it was never verifiable. I was concerned this was continued misinformation somehow. However, it does look like it exists, and there may be other companies to add too. See this screenshot from the Apt Pupil chapter of Frames of Evil: The Holocaust as Horror in American Film: screenshot. But do we want to include all of these? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we want to include all of those. I would question the notability, and even the continued existence, of some of those companies.  There has to be a standard for which companies to include and which to ignore, I just don't what that standard should be.  In other areas of WP, we have standards that say the mere existence of something, even with reliable sources to prove said existence, is not enough to argue for its inclusion.  The same standard has to apply here. --- The Old Jacobite   The '45  17:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We can go with the Variety review, then, perhaps? That would warrant the inclusion of Bad Hat Harry. I don't recall why I did not include it before; I probably referenced something else that did not mention it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sleight
Really don't want to annoy since you're a great editor and a great worker. But take a look at this. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I did not consider looking at Google Books about the general term "sleight". Not quite sure if it warrants an encyclopedic article, but the results seem to have some good content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just saying that "a sleight" is magician-speak for a sleight of hand. It's the same thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you were suggesting it as a stand-alone article apart from sleight of hand. Are you wanting to move the film article based on this? I would rather that we expand the hatnote at the film article to link to sleight of hand more directly. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White savior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial complex. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Move request
A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series). Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Columns
Sorry, I get carried away sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.158.34 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Wow, Erik -- thank you for this edit to the IP editor above. It works for me, too. I finally found out what I was doing wrong -- missing that extra |. At last, i can change all those stupid forced columns I've used for years. I was only checking out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film -- but found your explanations to the IP made a great refresher course for me. Thanks again. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Influx Magazine
I saw you removed a bunch of citations to Influx Magazine. I've had to warn writers from that site against refspam, but I'd consider it a reliable source. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure I was the one who added several of those citations. It's a source that I typically check for reviews of smaller independent films. I personally wouldn't bulk remove Influx Magazine citations from articles. Just my opinion – for what it's worth. If you think it should be removed, that's fine with me. I can probably find citations elsewhere that will be less controversial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , when I looked at it, it did not seem reliable, especially when it lacks any independent press. I noticed that reviews for it were being added for mainstream movies among reviews from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. I had gone ahead and removed them from the indie movies because I did not see a lack of reliability. Do you think there is a case for reliability, at least sufficiently to use in indie film articles? My concern is more with trying to boost attention to that website through Wikipedia itself. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do think it is a RS when the "lead film reviewer" is getting the byline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , who is the lead film reviewer? My evaluation of the source showed that it was pretty much no-name. It should not develop a name by having its reviews on Wikipedia. It needs to be reputable first, then be sourceable on Wikipedia. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need to include reviews from obscure, non-notable websites when there's already a well-developed reception section. A review from Influx Magazine adds little value to such an article and mostly seems to promote the magazine.  In an article about a direct-to-video independent film, however, I'd say it's less of an issue.  I think it becomes more of problem of whether the site is reliable.  It's got an editor listed, and it was apparently once a print magazine.  I guess that pushed me far enough into the "ehhh, sure, why not" region. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , okay, I will not press the issue for more indie movies anymore. Walter above reverted me on three articles, two being fairly mainstream, but one was indie. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather than edit war, I would like to see this at WP:RSN. I do not agree with the choice to remove. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I started a discussion: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wonderstruck
Hello, Erik! How are you? I'm talking on here to discuss the distribution part of Wonderstruck, Amazon Studios partners with distributors on every single one of the films they acquire, the Variety article clearly states "will partner" in the beginning. Although it says "on behalf of" as they did with Manchester and Love and Friendship, those are also co-distributions. I'm sorry if my spelling or grammar isn't as good, I'm on my phone writing this. Vmars22 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll let the matter be until there is better clarification from additional sources about this arrangement. This does say, "Whereas Netflix debuts its films on its streaming service, only grudgingly agreeing to screen them in theaters when it needs to qualify for awards, Amazon adheres to a more traditional distribution strategy. It partners with indie distributors, such as Roadside or Bleecker Street, to release movies in theaters, and then makes them available through its Prime subscription service in what is traditionally known as the pay-television window — the time when a film would run on an HBO or Showtime." That seems to mean that Amazon Studios does not distribute movies in theaters; Roadside does it for them. And Amazon Studios will distribute them online after. Maybe we could say (theaters) for Roadside and (online) for Amazon Studios? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just leave be until further conformation, I definitely agree with the removal for references for crew members, I just added references due to certain editors who followed Haynes work, removing and deleting every thing unless there was a source, but they are long gone it seems, so all good! Vmars22 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also added back the months where the cast joined, it is included in every film article, when they joined, please do not remove that. Vmars22 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We have to remember that we already list all actors and their roles in the "Cast" section, so what we put in the "Production" section has to be more than that, and in this case, it is to establish a timeline. Sometimes an actor will be attached many months ahead of filming, and others join later, and that can be useful to reflect. Here, the matter is simpler, that all the starring actors were cast in April and May. It could very well be that Morgan Turner, Tom Noonan, etc. also joined at the same time. We need to provide a focus, and I think if we cannot keep it that simple, we should just mention the starring actors. Jaden Michael and James Urbaniak are not mentioned in the recent Variety article, so they're hardly starring. We can revise further if the actual billing is different. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who is on the billing block, it doesn't matter who is on the Variety article, it doesn't matter if they are in the film for a second, if they're casting is reported, it is included in the production section as in every film article. It doesn't matter if they are a newcomer. The casting of Turner and Noonan was not reported to publications as were the other ones, if they are announced in a publication such as Variety, Deadline, it is included in the section. I understand you are editing the article with good intent, but please stop removing the casting. Maybe we can discuss how to re-do the production section? If you are open to that? :) Vmars22 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also removing "the following year", the grammar looks and sounds better with the date in front, for example "In December 2015, Haynes.." It just sounds and makes the article look better. I tend to repeat myself, sorry about that. Vmars22 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also removed FilmNation Entertainment from the release section, I don't think it's that relevant to include in the article, they are serving as a production company on the film, but the international sales isn't really something worth notable, so I've decided it remove it, do you agree? Vmars22 (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a best practice to report every single bit of casting news in a Wikipedia article. It is not done everywhere. If it seems like it is, it is probably because of an overdoing-it editor like Captain Assassin who includes every single mention of a film under the sun in a Wikipedia article. That level of detail can be too much, as I've advised him. Like I said, actors and roles are listed in the "Cast" section. Mention of them in the "Production" section has to be tied to the production process itself. If the upper-tier and lower-tier actors were all cast in April and May, then that is the key takeaway. To name each one of them, unless there is something specific to their casting (e.g., they joined the film because of an actor already cast in the film), it is indiscriminate. If we have to name names, we should at least be discerning about it, which is why Jaden Michael is not, based on the sources, as important as the others. Having a news article isn't necessarily qualifying, especially if the most recent press about the film does not mention him as part of the starring group.
 * Also, we need a topic sentence in the "Production" section. This is not common but should be because too often such sections engage in proseline without any context. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article body, and where else are we supposed to mention who directed the film and based on what book? The infobox itself is also supposed to be a summary of key facts, so both summaries need to refer to something in the body.
 * As for the international sales, it does not have a strong connection with the general narrative of the "Release" section. I don't mind it there, but I don't mind it gone at this point. It is an industry-driven detail that may or may not fit the narrative, depending on the context. Like if there was follow-up coverage that FilmNation sold European distribution rights to so-and-so company, we may want to restore the original detail and add that new one. In essence, we have to tell a story of sorts with each section so it can stand alone and cohesively. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , you also committed plagiarism as seen here. You cannot pass off another's writing as Wikipedia's own. The point of quoting Variety is to attribute that specific wording. We can do this, or we can put that synopsis in our own words. We cannot copy and paste outside wording without attribution. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry about that. I didn't realize. Honest mistake. The article looks good for now, let's just leave it be. I also agree, if an article comes back about FilmNation selling the film to any distributor, let's add it back. Sound good?

if you don't mind, can I revert the citation dates back to when they were originally found? Half the sources have been there since I created the article. Also, let's leave the production section alone, leave the casting as it is. If you don't mind, once I get back on my computer if I have each casting a ceperate citation instead of just one together? Incase a reader wants to click on it? :) Vmars22 (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we just agree to leave the cast announced by Variety, etc in the casting section? I'm sorry I repeat myself so much, I'm sorry if I also come off as mean or rude, I promise I don't mean to be. Vmars22 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the citations, I essentially reviewed them and traced back to who actually reported it. For example, Entertainment Weekly got it from Empire who got it from Screen Daily. But if you really desire, I changed the relevant accessdates back. You shouldn't think of it as "owning" a citation. The documentation says about that field, "Note that access-date is the date that the URL was checked to not just be working, but to support the assertion being cited". It can be updated anytime by anyone, especially if they are checking in general that the details match what is in the source. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One quick thing, should competing for the Palme d'Or be removed from the opening? I'm not really sure if it's relevant, to the opening. Vmars22 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cannes has both competing and non-competing films, so I think we should define the category. The recent Deadline.com article here does say, "It's the first Competition title to unspool." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Watchmen poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Watchmen poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

handout for students editing film articles
Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit your feedback regarding a handout Wiki Ed is developing for students who want to work on articles about films: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Films. It will be a print guide that supplements other resources and materials for student editors, like the interactive training and brochures that address broader aspects of editing, like etiquette, NPOV, citing sources, working in sandboxes, using the talk page, etc. This guide focuses only on aspects of editing required for contributing to articles about films assigned in classroom settings. We're hoping to get some feedback from the community by Monday, so we can send it off to the printer before the end of the month. I realize that's not a lot of time so no worries if you don't get to it. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Red link
I keep getting edit-conflicts while trying to respond on the talk page. I have to run out soon, but I'll return to this later this afternoon to address the points you and Gerda have raised. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , that's fine. I've been reading past discussions and found one you participated in back in 2013. I see that there are good reasons to be careful, but I feel like this is not being treated as a bigger deal. WP:LINK and WP:BLP are mum on the matter, especially the former in its "Red links" section. I'm a bit shocked to have been on Wikipedia this long and not be aware of this rule. I do want to challenge it but also acknowledge the caveats. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on User:Aoidh's talk page. He is both more familiar with it, and more eloquent than I. The long-and-short of it was that they don't necessarily have to be reverted on sight, but generally speaking it shouldn't be done. Aoidh was able to explain the tie-in to WP:BLP quite well. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That will help. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

on "Deaf Smith..."
Dear Erik, what you decide as "irrivelant" is only your poor point of view." Despite of you I'm in between with cinema chronicles when I was child, and I know as consider an historical witness in his all parts. Arrogance is not a similitude of intelligence or competence. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.53.52.146 (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Max Steel (film)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Max Steel (film). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Filmmaker vs. director etc
Hi Erik, remember me from the days of Manual of Style for film? Actually I was more into film categorization and "missing films" at the time. I wonder if you remember something about a decision or consensus to disambiguate film related names by (filmmaker), instead of (director), (screenwriter) and the such. I have been searching talk page archives in various projects and sub-projects, but I didn't find a thing. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 15:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello! I remember you, yes. :) I don't recall if there has been a high-level determination about filmmaker vs. director. The only discussion I recall from personal experience is Talk:Steve McQueen (director) which was not that in-depth. Maybe treat it on a case-by-case basis? Whatever reliable sources label the person as? You could see about referencing WP:NCP and maybe add a simple section at WP:NCF to suggest following WP:NCP. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I see... This helps, thanks! Hoverfish Talk 16:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Mediation
Since you have also done three edits to undo mine, let's go thru mediation. In case you wonder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Film_censorship_in_China Supermann (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect, you've reverted both me and TenTonParasol, so you are further along in reverting two editors who agree that your content is original research. Please stop going against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. These have been explained on the article's talk page. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Dark Tapes
A plot section was removed due to being unsourced with this edit, isn't there an exception with WP:FILM? I do not see any FA film articles having plot summaries sourced. Valoem  talk  contrib  19:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not original research. WP:FILMPLOT says, " Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." If a stink is still being made, just add inline citations using Cite AV media. It's like, duh, of course the film is the source here. Just need to make sure that the description is basic. Per the aforementioned guideline, avoid interpretations (or at least clear up a disputed key detail with a source). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, he doesn't know what he's doing. Valoem  talk  contrib  19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can reference the guideline and indicate that it has been long supported by the community as a non-issue. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I dunno if you want to chime in here, rather shocking behavior from an administrator. Valoem  talk  contrib  00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted and added inline citations. While we don't need them, they are easy enough to add. To call the write-up "original research" is ignorant of WP:PSTS, though. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey not sure which is better, I removed the inline citation because I've never seen it before in other articles, should we start doing this? (I've added it to the end) Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  17:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I would be fine if we did that across the board, but it should not be a reason to blank plot summaries. If they exist, no real reason to remove them. It can be a pain, though, when summaries change paragraph numbers. Like three paragraphs, each with an inline citation, could change into four paragraphs, one being "uncited" all of a sudden. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of such a request, I don't get why a ten year admin would blank a page I was recently working making a request he as probably never seen in film. It looks very strange which paragraph is cited all of them, but that makes no sense, why do that it seems like a waste of time and looks clunky. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  18:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Fight Club actors.
Hey. In regards to the consensus needed to add those actors I included, what would I need to do in order to validate that edit? Source their casting (if at all possible)? I don't quite get why only those 5 actors are listed and tertiary roles are omitted from the cast lists. Or would I simply need to gain a majority opinion on the talk page in order to add those names? Thanks.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 12:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, I read the dispute on the talk page regarding the infobox. I wish I had seen that sooner, because I would've supported your argument. I agree that in the main infobox, only Norton, Pitt, and Bonham Carter should be listed. Leto and Meat Loaf, plus the 3 I listed and/or any others, are worthy of inclusion in the Casting section, but not the infobox. I think that should be strictly for the main billed names. Too late to do anything about that?--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 12:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cane River (film)


The article Cane River (film) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable film, sources are entirely about the director and barely say anything about the film"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Cane River (film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cane River (film) 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/Cane River (film) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Second weekend in box office performance
Hey, It looks like you reversed some changes I made to the Second weekend in box office performance page. I recognize that the referenced source (Box Office Mojo) states the percentage changes and those are used in the article, but the percentage changes are wrong, or at best inconsistent. If you do the math yourself, the percentage change from the first week to the second week listed on Box Office Mojo is not accurate. It is possible that the percentage changes are being calculated differently, but then the way in which the percentage change is being calculated should be explained, and it is not on the Box Office Mojo website. 73.210.194.184 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , I see what you mean now. Still, I don't think we should change from the source at this time. Let me email Box Office Mojo to see if they can review these numbers and hopefully update them so we can too. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The Beguiled
I left an adequate explanation as to why I removed that section on The Beguiled page, yet you still have threatened to ban me from contributing. I believe that this claim isn't deemed worthy to be included on Wikipedia because it is not fact or universal truth. It is a small consensus from a few journalists on the internet. These claims may potentially be contributing to the defamation of Sofia Coppola, and as I said, Wikipedia is NOT the place for that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiff036 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Content on Wikipedia does not have to be "fact or universal truth" to be included. Wikipedia summarizes coverage about a topic, and the coverage for The Beguiled has included whitewashing. See reference #23, which lists multiple reliable sources writing about this. Counterpoints to this criticism, if also reliably sourced, can be included. The claim of defamation is inapplicable here; The Guardian is who has reported that Coppola was criticized for whitewashing. Please avoid related legal comments directed at anyone and see WP:NLT. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Original Screenplay ET by Johnny Colafrancesco
Hi,

I am rather new to writing on here and was responding to the credit given for the original screen play To ET. I am surprised that anyone remembered this (or even knew about it)and it was actually very accurate.I had named the script PI after the mathematical equation because it was the only way the child could understand and communicate to the alien at the time.I believe I was 14 years old and had just learned it myself and based the kid on myself as I guess most would do when learning the craft. I had submitted the script to several groups including Creative Artist and my lawyer was previously my athletic coach from high school. I think he kept a copy because we were all stunned at the success of the script and movie but I was young and didn't have interest in pursuing and the commitment of a lawsuit. The movie followed the script fairly close especially the part of 'phone home' which was the part I had envisioned being the most memorable. I guess the fact that the Sputnik has gone to space the year I was born and being influenced by the space race plus having relatives at the Huntsville space center was strong motivation to write a script about space. I believe we spent the previous summer in Rome and on the flight I sat with a group of engineers who I think were a part of creating the Atari game company. I was a kid and figured they were just a bunch of hippies. It was an exciting time and we found out years later the plane next to ours was the one the bank robbers that inspired the movie Dog Day Afternoon had requested to escape. I really appreciate the memories and it was somewhat funny that I had the pleasure of meeting Harrison Ford & Melissa Mathison at a restaurant near their home on 95th and Madison in Manhattan. Another of many coincidences was the agent at Creative Artist represented Carlo Rombaldi who did ET and was my uncles partner in Rome Carlos Maggi.it is funny how this has all come together over the years.2602:30A:2E42:80:712B:648E:3311:63DC (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'talk'
Thanks for leaving me a massage. And it's okay if my edit didn't comply with wiki's policies and thus you've had to remove it.

Seriously I'm here to help as well as learn as much as I can.

The Baby Driver page was messed up and believe me when I say this: I actually tried and somewhat did manage to clean it up rather than get into one of those talk-fights with other people (in fact this is my first talk), I tried to clean it up as much as I could, and with real not personal infos. I think I did a lot of it, especially the first opening and mid sections since that still remains unchanged, I guess it wasn't harmful.

All the links you see on the top section of that page came from me. But I, myself personally, work and have worked in random Productions (mostly small-time) so I can at least tell a thing or two for sure. (aak 17:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAK94 (talk • contribs)


 * , the BFI source works! Thanks. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you did there
There are plenty of film articles. like A film that had so many national companies producing it. but you just edited it to be called An American film. Don't be double standard. Stop changing the facts to how you like. Stop being a mafia keyboard warrior on the internet. it's just parasite and cancer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harper9979 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

The thing with tables
Hi Erik, I am searching through the archived project discussions on the issue tables, as I am trying to get the MOS on tables going. In a recent discussion I see you said "I think we only avoid tables to make sure novice editors can work on it", meaning their use in cast. I do not favor them for other reasons although I am quite advanced in wiki code. I also have a thing with web-design outside Wikipedia. When a table is given to present very simple data, like actor-role, I feel like it's trying to make something overly clear to me-the-reader, something I could very easily get from a simple list without the need of cells, columns and rows. It's overly technical for too simple a thing. In sports it's different as the eye will search vertically and horizontally to get the data. In awards it's not so necessarily. I see that the use of tables there, in order to justify itself, has created a column for nationality of recipient. Now this can (and should) simply go as a parenthesis after the recipient, because it is parenthetical information. Then we have sortable, which would be a good justification for using tables, but most tables are left without sort values and pressing the sort buttons makes a problematic rearrangement of the rows. So I spend hours inserting sort-values, though I honestly would like some of these table to be turned to lists. My reason for wanting to do so in the case of awards is mostly because of the awful scrolling length that a page takes. If you fold a list in two responsive columns, you have the optimal length. If you squeeze your window to 800px or use a 768px tablet the area with tables in, say 2011 Cannes Film Festival, needs lots and lots of scrolling and the eye loses contact with the overview and you have to scroll back and forth to see in which section you are, and how this relates to the other section. In contrast, 2006 Cannes Film Festival is much more friendly. I hope you give me some feedback on this before I try to make up my mind about the MOS page. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 19:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

An update. I was finally convinced to accept tables in awards as the de-facto situation. So although I still think we have to consider the tablet user when using tables extensively, I am giving it time to think more about the missing section on tables in MOS Film. It shouldn't be a guideline, but it should somehow urge editors consider a wider public. Hoverfish Talk 23:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

For your other list
In A Lot Like Love, Ashton Kutcher also has a deaf brother: see also here. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Draft
Hey I was wondering if I could get some eyes on the draft for my proposed production section rewrite. I'm asking you and Tripplethreat both because you both seemed critical of the version I initially had. You can find a link to it here. Thank. --Deathawk (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Shin Godzilla
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shin Godzilla. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

White savior narrative
If your claim is true that this is documented in reliable sources, you should add a link to said sources in the article, instead of just having the link to the topic there. It's just as much a POV edit to randomly insert the link without a reference as it is to remove it. Just because the main character is white and is involved with helping a group of non-white characters doesn't mean it fits this trope. It is an unnecessarily negative connotation for a film that doesn't treat its non-white characters in a derogatory or superior way. Race is tangential to the story. Of course there are issues of representation in film because white actors have more often than not been the main characters in film, but Daniel is saved by O'Neil and O'Neil is saved by Daniel, and they are both saved by Sha'uri's group at the end as well. To depict it as just a white racist fantasy without proper documentation is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.242.69 (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , per WP:SEEALSO, links that are tangentially related. Sources connecting films with the trope makes it directly related, though not necessarily the main element of the film. For Stargate, I've added a fuller description and an inline citation, which itself explains why the film is classified to have that trope. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: WP:BRD

 * "Have you never followed WP:BRD? You make an edit, and if it gets reverted, then you start a discussion?"
 * Um, yea, I have. An edit I made over three weeks ago went unchallenged. You reverted it today (three times, actually), whioch puts the BRD ball in your court. My edit is the predominant one, and your edit is the Bold part of BRD. Maybe you were confused as to the timeline?
 * As you might have realized, you have reverted three times. By every definition, you have violated the guidelines for edit-warring. If you self-revert and use the talk page, I won't report you. Consider that a friendly request to help preserve talk page AGF. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gothic horror film


Hello, Erik. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gothic horror film".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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.  T K  K ! bark with me! 03:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

To be fixed asap

 * Moved discussion to Talk:List of films featuring the deaf and hard of hearing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Think we've got consensus
Good call on PostTrak. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , great! Do you think just adding "add PostTrak" is sufficient, or do you think we need some wording to talk about both being acceptable where available? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oy, I dunno. I guess I would just use the RT/MC phrasing as a template. Otherwise, I guess you could run something on the talk page and other editors can tweak it.


 * You are one patient dude, and that's just helped make this whole Wikipedia thing better. My hat is off to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Eh, not always. :) Sometimes I attach too much importance to certain content and do need a reality check from time to time. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hong Chau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Downsizing ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hong_Chau check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hong_Chau?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Movie links
Hello Erik.

You just erased two external links to FilmAffinity (two films: A Quiet Place and Lover for a Day) because, according to you, they are inappropriate. I don't understand why IMDB or RottenTomatoes links are appropriate while FilmAffinity links aren't, since this website offers similar information about the movie. I hope you can clarify this for me.

Thank you. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.61.46.126 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Waiting to include material
Regarding what is being argued at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi, do you think it is best to wait in this case? I can't see how things will be that much different a week or two from now, or even a month from now. I mean, who gets to say, "Okay, we've waited long enough. Now let's include the material?" And exactly what other type of sources would we be looking for? Starting another RfC on the matter after this one just for that seems ugh. I keep thinking of what Deckiller, Deathawk and GoneIn60 argued. Except for the valid "wait and see" arguments, I really don't understand the resistance to including the information other than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. And I especially dislike "the feelings of fans don't matter" argument, which has been consistently proven false on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)   ‎

On a side note: I watch your talk page (have been watching it for years). So no need to ping me to it for a reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No need to wait. Honestly, I keep seeing more and more coverage about the fan reaction (e.g., Rotten Tomatoes saying yesterday that the scores are correct), and it seems to be getting to a point where a separate section is warranted. We can use one of these "fast-changing" templates for the paragraph (or the section) if we make one. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. We might have to wait, though. I'm just not sure how the "wait" matter will play out if it happens. Again, would one start another RfC? I can imagine the same editors who oppose now opposing months or even a year from now, with some still stating "wait." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there is a strong case to include information today. The fact that Rotten Tomatoes had to defend its user reviews shows that it is an evolving situation. It was not a one-off criticism. If we did have to wait, it could be revisited around the time the movie comes out on home media. But I do find that this coverage is substantial enough that Wikipedia should be adequately summarizing what is going on. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If we end up adding it soon, would you be willing to add and summarize the matter? You're one of our better film editors and are really good at covering things like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is in favor, sure. Though I will be mostly off the next couple of weeks (and who knows what the situation will be at the end of that). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

 * Thank you, ! You too! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)