User talk:Erik/Archive 32

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Star Wars Last Jedi audience response
You've likely seen what it looks like by now. I'm concerned about the final product ending up being too small and too vague (but mainly too vague). The draft could use the help of editors who stated "Yes" in the RfC's Survey section. Having both sides work on the article helps ensure that the draft is not biased towards the viewpoints of one group of editors. Right now, I'm trying to work with two editors who voted "No." And I certainly do not want to add material only to have it reverted. Unless it's you, GoneIn60 and Sock, I'm not sure what other yes voters I should query about helping with expansion. Starship.paint is busy, Popcornduff is more of a copyeditor, and Betty Logan [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film&oldid=819047114#Audience_response_covered_under_the_%22Critical_response%22_heading? weighed in] at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film...but otherwise has not been involved in the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I may find time here and there to assist, but I've been pretty busy as well outside of Wikipedia. I went ahead and made a few changes (most of which were minor). I'll have to take a closer look at the sources listed in the RfC and other talk page discussions. The draft so far does seem kinda vague, or at the very least, incomplete and somewhat unorganized. If the 2nd paragraph's focus is on the impact and analysis of user-generated scores, the 3rd should move away from the numbers and focus on audience reaction in a non-quantifying manner. It should zero in on the content of that criticism. There is plenty of coverage on that as well, and it would directly tie in with the opening statement (regarding Todd VanDerWerff's piece on Vox). --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, GoneIn60. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

reversal of a topic blanking
You just reversed the blanking of a discussion thread I created at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#IMDb_citations. I removed it because of hostile language copied over from another thread. I posted the topic to find answers to questions I had about IMDb citation, and received polite commentary from other users, and no longer need the thread to be up. Can you please reinstate the blanking of the topic. If not, then is there another place one can have conversations without public condescension? Chrisdevelop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, January 25, 2018‎


 * , we don't blank discussion threads. It will be archived in time. I'll ask about improving the tone. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Since there is no control after posting, is it possible to ask questions privately, rather than by posting questions and joining threads publicly in Talk pages?  Regards Chrisdevelop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, January 25, 2018‎


 * You can email a user, but honestly, I am not seeing anything that warrants private communication. That's only warranted for severe situations. (By the way, can you sign with four tildes to provide your signature and date and time?) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Production Section
I've noticed you have a habit of starting out production sections stating what's already been stated in the lead. While this can be good, in some cases. in a lot it seems like overkill and redundant. It leads to cases where often the reader reads the same information almost verbatim twice in a row. If you think it is necessary to include this information, you could do it by just modifying the subsequent sentences to include a qualifier. For instance instead of saying "X is directed by Bob Smith. Smith first decided to adapt the material after experiencing a hardship" It'd be a better read if you wrote "Director,Bob Smith first decided to adapt the material after experiencing a hardship" The same information is presented although it's less repetitive. --Deathawk (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the feedback! I think it really depends on the topic how much redundancy can happen. Stub articles that also open their lead sections with directing and writing credits can seem repetitive, not to mention that with very little content, both similar passages would be very close to each other. Per WP:LEAD, though, the lead section is supposed to be a concise overview of the article body.
 * Also, when the article grows, the "Production" section drops "below the fold" after a fuller lead section, a longer plot summary, a longer "Cast" section, etc. so the "Production" section neighbors the lead section less and warrants some contextual re-establishment. Kind of like writing a full name the first time it is used in a section. In the case of "Production" sections, not all lead sections will necessarily open with who directed the film and based on what screenplay. Sometimes the actors or the premise will be mentioned first. The "Production" section ought to start with these details as relevant to the main focus for such a section. Let's say a "Production" section was long enough to have subsections. I would want to restate the writer or the cinematographer under their relevant subsection.
 * Again, I think this redundancy is more likely if an article is still growing, and it is less obvious when it is more developed. Do you think that still happens with longer articles? Another way I perceive it is to frame the "final" credits at the onset, especially useful when the director changes. To start a full section with no-longer-relevant names could be confusing. (So I suppose my more introductory approach is a kind of a counter to a lot of sections I've read where I feel as a reader to be thrown into the middle of something, especially in longer articles.) However, I'll look at my openings and see if I can make them a bit more different to flow into the beginning of production history a little more smoothly. Let me know your own thoughts. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I see this as a problem no matter the article length. The issue I see is that not everybody is going to read the article in a linear fashion, in fact I would suspect that most readers reed the lead and then go to the part that they're interested in. Therefore even if other sections have grown, it's still gonna read repetitively to these people. My other chief concern is that, even beyond other sections, the "production" section probably mostly attracts readers who are aware of the basic facts, either from outside knowledge or by reading the lead, and while it'd be improper to write the article around this assumption, it's probably not necessary to make these facts so front and center. There are more subtle ways to include this information than stating "X directed Y" or whatever.


 * I do see your point about it being potentially confusing when multiple people come and go from a project. However I believe this can also be solved through subtly altering the text. A favorite of mine is to say "Initially" in front of someone who no longer is affiliated with the project. This clues readers in to the fact, that the person may no longer be involved in the final project. --Deathawk (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Some readers may jump to the "Production" section first thing, sure, but not all of them will. Heck, maybe some will jump to the "Production" section straightaway, especially with TOC and Google providing anchor links to sections. Nor do I think we can assume that they'll simply remember everything from the lead section if it's not a film they're close to. Certain directors are household names, where others are not. Many writers aren't. But we don't really know the extent of a household name. It's very easy for information to seem "obvious" when we know certain films very well, especially based on our own location, contemporary time period, keeping up with movie news routinely. I guess for me, it is about prioritizing facts for readers even it may be obvious to some, especially in the very long run. While I'm open to minor alterations, I guess I'm not finding an introductory sentence that big of a deal in general. But I'll try to find a way to make them more interesting. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Hello E. I saw Dawson City: Frozen Time last night. It is a fascinating film. The balance between straight documentary and art film is like nothing I've seen. While I don't expect anyone to like it as much as I do it is worth seeing for anyone with an interest in film history - and several other histories for that matter :-) Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is quite neat! I will find a way to watch this. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are in for an amazing experience E. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing! I saved a reminder to watch it via YouTube or Amazon. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Half Nelson
Since the movie can't be removed, I request there be a counter point added to the summary of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Energy (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , can you weigh in at Talk:White savior narrative in film? I'm not unopposed to that, but I am not sure if the Medium.com source is reliable as a counterpoint. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply
I asked you to take it to the talk page first, but whatever. Rusted AutoParts 00:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hell's Kitty
I wanted to invite you to this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment. I'm curious how new films are added to the wikipedia page. Hell's Kitty is a new film with a number of reviews and a significant cast. 172.248.182.59 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
Thanks. That looks more balanced. Nevertheless, since RealPeerReview, my respect for "academic sources", especially in the humanities has greatly diminished. Not all academic publications are equal. Some are pure hogwash. Kleuske (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , in this case, the underlying publishers appear very credible. I'm more wary of online-only publications. Not sure of any susceptible ones on the print side? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the section as it is. If I did have doubts on the sources, I would have said so. It was merely a comment on a general statement you made in the edit summary. Kleuske (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Thanks! I'm also expanding the rest of the article body so the transgender section does not seem disproportional to the rest of the article (to avoid a coatrack presentation). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your Incorrect Use of Tables in Film Cast.
Please cite where in WP:FILMCAST it says that tables are acceptable? The word isn't mentioned in the section. I understand that tables require a lot of typing so I don't know if it is an emotional investment but it's a poor format especially for mobile users. Additionally, pointing out I've never seen it, is meant to establish there is no widespread use and refute your idea of consensus that it is acceptable. I'm going to the talk page with this.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Plot notice
Template:Plot notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 02:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk page formatting.
In the talk page I was responding directly to Mapreader, relating specifically to a question that Mapreader had. I was not replying to anyone else in the thread, by moving my content you are implying that it's a reply to Gråbergs Gråa, which is untrue. While I can see your confusion, I am not trying to "Jump in line" I'm just following the basics of how threaded discussions work. --Deathawk (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , see WP:THREAD. You're "Editor 3" in this example. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , did you not see WP:THREAD? You can't "cut in line" in front of Andrzejbanas. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't "cutting in line" I wasn't responding to Andrzejbanas I was responding to you, WP:Thread explicitly states, "If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it. Use a colon to indent your message to create a threaded message In other words I wasn't adding to the existing thread, I was starting a new one. This is further backed up by the WP:Indent article.--Deathawk (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , Andrzejbanas was replying to me. Using the WP:THREAD example, let's ignore the second Editor 1 comment and the Editor 4 comment. I am Editor 1, and Andrzejbanas is Editor 2 in replying to me, as evidenced by the indented comment. You are Editor 3 in also replying to me at a later date and time. You are reading "directly below" too strictly. Andrzejbanas already replied "directly below" as seen here. As a second respondent to me, your comment would go below that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It gets somewhat muddled once you are in more than three replies deep and somewhat open to interpretation. I did not want to muddle the discussion thread with arguments over "final context" so I replied directly to you, which would of let you reply directly to me. while still keeping the rest of the thread on topic. I have replied like this several times and have never come across a problem until this month. I can see you can find the format confusing so I'll try to avoid it when I'm directly conversing with you. However I maintain that this format is not problematic for the vast majority of Wikipedia. In the future please do not move my responses because you disagree with it.--Deathawk (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

'''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

New discussion-
Hi, I was thinking that you, Masem and I, have been going around in circles for a couple weeks now about our own interpretations of the Film MOS, this wasn't my intentions when I started the discussion thread, I wanted to see if there was any consensus among other users for either of our interpretations. With both your and Masem's consent I'd like to start a new thread about it, where all three of us would limit our input to seee if we get a consensus going. --Deathawk (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

On Christopher Cantwell(s)
Hello Erik. I understand your objection to the titling of Christopher Cantwell, but the reversion to that title was the result of a move discussion involving many editors, so please do not reinstate your move to Christopher Cantwell (white supremacist) without initiating a new move discussion. WP:BLP issues on the part of the "white supremacist" were one of the reasons to move the page back to the plain title, although I can assure you that I have little sympathy for his positions. Further, the disambiguation page you recreated at the plain title was already retained when moving the pages and can now be found at Christopher Cantwell (disambiguation). I see that you created the other article, probably as part of the attempt to distinguish between the two figures, but the hatnote on the article is intended to be sufficient to distinguish the two in a primary topic situation. Again, just making sure that you will use the requested moves procedure rather than again reinstate moves that have already been objected to and subsequently discussed at length. Best, Dekimasu よ! 16:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Move review is another option available to you if you think I closed the recent discussion on the talk page in an inappropriate fashion, although WP:MR is not a place to discuss new arguments in favor of a move. Dekimasu よ! 16:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't WP:BLPN be the better place? I agree that the white supremacist is more notable than the filmmaker and would not have opposed if they were two everyday joes. I don't think we are compelled to prioritize one here if there is a potential risk of negative association. I think the WP:BLPN post is warranted instead because we should know from editors who work directly with BLP matters if the risk is recognized here or not. I speak from my own experience, having had finished Halt and Catch Fire and being thrown off to see the white supremacist article. I created the filmmaker article as a result per WP:CREATIVE and made sure the difference was clear. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not see your post at WP:BLPN until after posting here, and have now replied briefly there. Since we seem to be just missing each other repeatedly, I think it would be best to have the discussion in one place. However, I still believe the best place to have the discussion would be in a move request at Talk:Christopher Cantwell, with a notification at the WP:BLPN inviting editors to participate in the discussion–since WP:RM is the standard centralized location for move discussions, with an established procedure in place. My concern continues to be that there was a discussion initiated intended to reach consensus, and after the conclusion of that discussion, another undiscussed move was performed. Dekimasu よ! 17:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Cloverfield
Hi Erik. I am currently set to review this article for GA, but the nominator has decided that they cannot respond to my comments. I would rather not just fail the review like that, so I was wondering if you would be interested in working on it? No worries if you aren't interested or don't have the time, but I see that you are one of the top contributors to the page (albeit not recently) and so thought I might as well ask you just in case. Let me know either way. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam! Thanks for asking, but I am not interested. I have not been involved with anything GA-related for years now. (And am winding down my editing more generally due to IRL stuff.) Hope you can find someone to help! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As a lover of Cloverfield and someone happy to use GAs as an excuse to re-watch movies I enjoy, I'd be glad to take a look at it and see if we can save the review, if you'd be interested. Sock   ( tock talk)  14:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be great, thanks! And no worries Erik, I figured there was no harm in asking. Good luck with your RL stuff. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sock should be of good help. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking sources?
Hello. I hope you're doing well. While I'm trying to expand The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking with sources from newspapers, the AFI and the BFI, can you also provide a list of additional sources which I can use to help this article? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , there are sources listed here if you click "browse" then "Production Titles" then search for this film's title. Another possibility is Film Index International, which I do not have access to anymore. The director's memoir here also apparently covers the film in part. Google Scholar lists some results here. Same with Google Books here (with director's name added to filter for the film). Hope this helps. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
I was patrolling large edits/changes and noticed your removal of content on List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Is there an explanation? I read the edit summary but don't understand what is going on. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  15:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes used to be extremely long (over 222 KB) as seen here. Consequentially, there was a discussion to apply list criteria, especially since many films had too few reviews to be an appropriate sample. The same thing happened with List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and the consensus was to be consistent in applying the same criteria to both lists. It is in line with WP:CSC, "...only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I am not used to seeing such large improvements. Thanks for what you do and bring to Wikipedia. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  15:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Happy editing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

New Film
Hi Eric. Is there a way to ask you to add a specific movie which is coming in 2 weeks to theatre?

Thanks Ilan Ilanshriki (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I'm not sure what you mean. A Wikipedia article about a film has to be notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. A film that has not been released can qualify for an article if there have been reliable third-party sources writing about it. If that is not the case, then there needs to be coverage at the time of release for notability to be established. The article also needs to meet the NPOV policy in its presentation; it cannot be part of the filmmakers' marketing, so it must avoid promotional language and mention negative points if there is coverage about such points. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply
(original comment here)

I was probably just not that patient that day, same in regards to Godzilla vs. Kong. No excuse though, I won’t be copy pasting again. Sorry about that. Rusted AutoParts 15:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

AfroCine: The Months of African Cinema Continues….
Greetings!

Thank you very much for signing up to participate in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 200 articles created in over seven (7) languages! The figures soars to up to a thousand, if Wikidata entries are included. Furthermore, there have been about 5 in-person gatherings of Wikipedians in different countries across the world to create articles about African(a) cinema!

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!


 * Article suggestions can be found here. You can also add to this list.
 * Some notable reliable sources for African cinema can be found here. Again, this list needs expansion.
 * Interested in Wikidata translation? check out the Occupation Drive, which is being led by Wiki Loves Women, in support of the contest and the project!
 * Please remember to list articles you have created or improved in the Article Achievements section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked.

Thank you once again for being part of this global event!

Kind regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

New Yorker review in First Man
Hey man, hope you’re well. Need your third person view on something. In the First Man article a user has included an opinion piece about the film in the Critical response section and I feel it adds no context/content to the page (it’s not even a review of the film). The way he phrased it (nonetheless the article itself) are political for the sake of being political (“the film is an accidental right-wing fever dream”) and when I (or other users) tried to remove and/or reword it, the user reverts without valid explanation (going through their selective edit history it’s clear their political views align with the article’s author so they’re pushing it here on Wikipedia). I also started a section on the film’s Talk page to no avail.

I just switched it with the actual New Yorker review of the film but have no doubt it will be reverted once more, so figured I’d get out ahead of it to avoid an edit war/suspension. Thanks and have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have not seen the film yet so I don't want to read the sources too closely. However, my impression from afar is that in general, Brody's review is appropriate to cite, considering that Brody is a Top Critic under RT (though not under Metacritic, while Anthony Lane is under both). This and this mention the Brody review. It looks like National Review here has mentioned the review as well. Film criticism should not be treated as inherently apolitical, but considering that the review is in the consensus minority and is more focused on political context, it could instead be part of some "Political commentary" section. (And really, the "American flag controversy" subsection could be under that kind of section too.) That's my quick take on the matter. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , I wanted to say that I saw this after all and really enjoyed it. Made me realize how claustrophobic outer space actually is, like being deep underwater. The IMAX sequence at the end was incredible too (especially in true IMAX format). I found the film a great portrayal of opposites--his grandest, most public success and his smallest, most private loss. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had my issues with some of the pacing and didn’t think the small approach to such a grand story was the right path to take, but you’re certainly right about the end sequence and how vast-yet-tight space travel is... TropicAces (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)tropicAces
 * I agree that it felt slow at times, but I guess I got accustomed to it. Maybe the director felt like there had been so much spectacle displayed by other films and wanted to take a different approach. (I think there was an article commenting about that in explaining why there had not been a moon-landing film in recent memory.) I think it helped make the Gemini and moon-landing scenes more impactful. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

New draft
Hi. I just added a new draft of a documentary film. I see you are on the documentary task force. If you have time and interest maybe you will want to take a look at it and fix any mistakes I made. Thank you very much. Draft:Heading Home (2018 film) is the documentary. I was a little unclear whether I presented the name right in the title, for instance. --2604:2000:E010:1100:5CD6:A684:55FA:AF00 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello! I think for the opening sentence, you can simply have the whole title. I think it can be understood that "Heading Home" is simply shorthand for the full one. Once you have the full title, you can just use the shorthand in the rest of the article body. A few other suggestions:
 * You can use plainlist templates in the film infobox to list the names.
 * For the opening sentence, I would simplify the premise to simply say that it is about Israel's national baseball team competing for the first time in the World Baseball Classic. The "David-and-Goliath" bit feels a little too promotional-sounding to have upfront. It could be quoted in another spot in the article body.
 * The "Release" sentence could use a citation, especially since it will become harder to verify release-date details as time goes on. And in what capacity was it released? Limited release or film festival or something else?
 * I would remove the AllMovie and Metacritic ELs since we should have ELs that have more information than what the Wikipedia article can ideally provide. AllMovie rarely has that, and Metacritic only qualifies if it actually has more reviews than what is in the article body.
 * I recommend not using the IMDb awards page. IMDb is user-submitted, and there is not much confidence placed in it. However, you can use the name of the festival and the award to find (and verify) a more original source.
 * The citations seem inconsistent with some having dates and some not having them. I would encourage consistency with using the cite news template.
 * Hope this helps! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Han Solo spin-off listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Han Solo spin-off. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled Han Solo spin-off redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

SuperFly (upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SuperFly (upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the SuperFly (upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

 * Merry Christmas to you too! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

 * Appreciate the seasons greetings! :) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Essay
Hey, a belated Merry Christmas to you, if relevant. :D I'm discussing an essay you contributed to at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Regards, and a happy new year, if relevant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Driveways Reply
original comment

Why are you taking this as me saying “there’s definitely no potential for an article here”? Okay, the film has a premiere lined up and the filmmaker is notable. Is there any other citations out there confirming the castings for the film? I believe in the write the article first principle in addition to feeling the article needs some additional substantial sourcing before it could be created. Rusted AutoParts 15:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:REDLINK says in the nutshell, "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." Your removing the red link seems to say that you think there is definitely no potential for an article. I understand that it is still very early, but the point is that we are not going to "keep up" and remember what is linked and what is not. We may wind up editing other topics while this film comes and goes, and a red link could have been useful for encouraging creation or immediately setting up navigation once someone decides to make that article, while we go about our usual editing business. It's like pre-planning for the future. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Template talk:Infobox film#Adding an "executive producer" credit
Hi Erik, do you mind responding to my suggestion on the film template infobox page? Thanks. ATC. Talk 20:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Showrunner crediting
Hi Erik, I've came across an issue in the infobox for television episode articles for years that I just addressed in the talk page. Can you respond by any chance? Thanks! ATC. Talk 21:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi Erik, Sorry I went to revert an IP blanking but the watchlist jumped up and ofcourse ended up reverting something else entirely, Anyway my apologies for the revert there, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , no worries! I've done that myself. :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha glad I'm not the only one! :), Many thanks for reverting me, Sorry again, Happy editing :), – Davey 2010 Talk 21:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A Star Is Born
A Star Is Born on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_featuring_the_deaf_and_hard_of_hearing - yesterday I've seen the film, it was amazing, I loved it very much but it does not fit this category. The story about a character who is having some difficulties hearing in some scenes is present in almost every film. I believe you should delete this movie.

62.211.90.211 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I cited the listing with a reliable source. A quick search engine test shows a few other sources highlighting it. Hearing loss is a spectrum, and the degree of its presentation depends on the film, meaning that there is a wide variety. If sources highlight hearing loss in that film, then I am hard-pressed to simply remove it. You're welcome to start a discussion at Talk:A Star Is Born (2018 film) about including that link or not. For what it's worth, WP:SEEALSO says "See also" sections are for "tangentially related" topics. This is more than tangentially related, IMO. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Article for Deletion comment
- just a quick ping with regard to your Keep vote on an article I suggested for deletion to ask (with much respect) if you had actually read the "reviews and coverage" and not just the names of the sources linked to by the user you mentioned as support for your vote. For example, the Variety article is a brief announcement about casting from three years prior to the film's release. The Time Out Dubai link is simply a three-sentence synopsis. Other links are similarly weak. If you've read these already and your vote was fully informed, please accept my apologies for the interruption. Cheers!  B.Rossow ·  talk  13:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

About page of movie 'Crimson Peak'.
Hello friend. I noticed you undo the change I made in 'Crimson Peak' movie page. I just want to tell you, that the genre mentioned in page is wrong. The movie is not 'Gothic Romance', but it is a Gothic drama, Fantasy and Horror. You can check it on IMDB or rotten tomatoes. I hope you will understand why i made a change on page. I watched the movie yesterday and it was not a Gothic Romance movie. Thank you.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2554274/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/crimson_peak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.194.147.14 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A film can be classified in numerous genres. Google shows numerous results for "crimson peak" "gothic romance", especially with some commentary saying that it is not a horror film. No source says it is not a Gothic romance. Furthermore, the director calls it a Gothic romance, and if secondary sources support that classification, that seems most appropriate for the opening sentence. The lead section can discuss elements of Gothic drama, fantasy, and horror as needed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

David Heyman template
I’d make an argument for whether the producers themselves are notable but if it violates a guideline it violates a guideline. Should probably put up Template:Scott Rudin for deletion too. Rusted AutoParts 20:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the challenge is that most producers simply are not recognizable enough by the vast majority of people, so it is simpler for them to go to the producers' articles if they really are curious. For what it's worth, there may be a similar issue with awards templates, e.g., "This film won this not-too-well-known award, see what other films won it too." I think navboxes for directors and series/franchises are appropriate, but I'm wary of additional ones. Some films have a lot of producers. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Venom
Hey, it has almost been a week since this happened and I was just wondering if you were interested in discussing your edit (I started the discussion at Talk:Venom (2018 film)). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Newish to this; question about Critical Response and CinemaScore
I noticed that “CinemaScore” was in the first paragraph of “Critical Response” of a recent movie, which isn’t something I’d noticed before. I did some digging and found that it was mostly a single user going around to articles and adding this. I’m not sure if this is appropriate but I don’t where to ask about it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasSixten (talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , you can post at WT:FILM asking about it. I find CinemaScore inappropriate to include in critical response sections because critical response means response from critics. I know at least one editor that makes very acrobatic arguments to justify including it in such sections. The content is best suited for a general release section. Feel free to post about it, and I'll reiterate what I said here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

See You Yesterday
Hi Erik. Hope you're well. I saw this logged at WP:RM by yourself. You might be interested in this page. You can request the page mover permission to be added to your account, and then you can move pages when the target already exists, as in this instance. When you get the flag added, you're given an extra box on the page move page (leave redirect behind). Simply untick that, and you can move the page to the target location.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you very much for the guidance. I've requested this for myself. Much appreciated. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Erik. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AErik granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The Silence
Hi I hope you are well I made a contribution to the film The Silence and its comparisons with the film The Quiet Place, my contribution was that a connection between the two films is that Stanley Tucci star of The Silence is the brother-in-law of Emily Blunt star of The Quiet Place. You have removed it stating that it was unsourced. If you look at the Wikipedia profiles of both actors you will see that both have the other as relatives! It is a well known fact that Stanley Tucci is married to Felicity Blunt, an English literary agent, who is the older sister of Emily Blunt. As Wikipedia itself has these facts, my edit should stand. Thanks for checking my contribution, however. Please have a nice day. Erik Have you had time to look at my contribution? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezikiahbartholomew (talk • contribs) 10:08, May 13, 2019 (UTC)

Notification
Do you even realize that this discussion you stated is actually started by me? The problem here is that while your wording differs from TropicAces' and some others', you insist using repetitive words (assessed, reported etc.) and and redundant information such as listed 3 as negative and 1 as mixed. I think you should be careful next time. Have a nice day. Sebastian James what's the T? 20:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Film: Verkannte Menschen / Misjudged People
Dear Erik,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misjudged_People

I just wanted to thank you for this important entry, which I don't see in your list of articles.

I'd like to see this film be released to the public (and a link on the page). Do you have any guidance on any caveats or best ways to accomplish this? Since it was produced with public funds, are any limitations on its release now?

Thanks, Marla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablacigin (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , I must have forgotten to add it to my list. I update it after the fact, so sometimes I overlook articles where I made only a handful of edits. As for the film being released to the public, I do not have any guidance. I researched this topic from the outside, and I do not recall any information about how the film could be available. I would suggest contacting Gallaudet University to see if they have a copy as part of their collection. I am not sure about copyright issues either. I wish I could be of more help. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Photos
How can I properly put up a photo of someone? I'm still unsure and you are experienced in this field. So, can you help me please. Supernova1980 (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , I suggest reading Image use policy. In essence, if a person is living, then a freely licensed image of that person is possible. That means that you would need to find an image with that license to use. To use an example, for Millicent Simmonds, I found this File:Cannes 2017 6.jpg which has a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, and I created a cropped image based on that image. I did something similar with Alex Tse. I think one way to try to find a freely licensed image is to search on Flickr while filtering for the free-license tags. Hope that helps somewhat. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Kyliegh Curran for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kyliegh Curran 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/Kyliegh Curran until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 to me  •  see what I've done ) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Battlefield Earth (film). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Advice
Hi there! I'm wanting to bring the article on Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa, an old film, to FA standard and was recommended here that you might be able to offer feedback or know of someone who could? Thanks Kingsif (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of films featuring Atlantis


Hello, Erik. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of films featuring Atlantis".

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. CptViraj (📧) 08:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Average row removal
Why did you remove average rows? -- Maze  waxie  09:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , these rows did not have routine calculations per WP:CALC. For example, how do you "average" between two films when one has "A" and one has "A-"? The outcomes are WP:SYNTHesized, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is the math for that. For example you removed the average from The Lord of the Rings trilogy that has an A-, an A and an A+. The average is exactly an A. So you removed them without even checking if that was the case or not. -- Maze  waxie  13:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is evading the question, though. What if any two films had the same grade? Then how is the "average" grade calculated? It is inherently problematic. I started a discussion on the article's talk page and can notify WT:FILM about this content dispute. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of "rounding"? -- Maze  waxie  14:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, no need for that. We both mean well here. Let's keep the discussion going on the article's talk page and see what editors notified at WT:FILM have to say. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't understand why certain people removed averages. These averages are neither wrong, incorrect or disruptive. Averages provide info on The average rating of critics. Averages help complete information regarding a particular franchise. Other franchises have averages that is not sourced and besides not everything is sourced on Wikipedia. All franchises that have verifiable rotten and Metacritic scores should have averages. Something called applying the principle of equality.If you so called experienced editors with an inferiority complex feel it's wrong, then go ahead and remove averages. There's no winning with such people. Just let it go as I am. Not bothering anymore. Hpdh4 21:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)


 * "... you so called experienced editors with an inferiority complex ..." is very close to a personal attack, and certainly uncivil. Do that again and you will be blocked. See also WP:OR and WP:AGF.   General Ization  Talk  21:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , your saying that the "averages are neither wrong, incorrect or disruptive" does not make it true. In the mathematical world, it is indeed problematic to try to take an average of averages. Furthermore, it runs afoul of WP:SYNTH in stating that it is what critics thought of the film series as a whole when no one except Wikipedia itself has said such a thing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if I've offended anyone but when you try to be civil then other people who don't try to understand your p.o.v become uncivil and act the way of trolls. I've been called a troll, disruptive etc. All because what makes sense ruffles the feathers of experienced editors. It's like people think they can't learn anything from others. I suppose what makes sense doesn't matter in the grand scheme, as long  as people can be stuck up. Everything must be sourced and add up to experienced editors idea of what's right. Your reply to this message ignoring my points on averages is proof of this, General Ization,. I won't be heckled by anyone. Hpdh4 23:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Nomination of Dark Knight (nickname) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dark Knight (nickname) 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/Dark Knight (nickname) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The OUTIH debacle
Hey man. So obviously it’s getting (or is past the point of) contentious on the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood article and its Talk page, and if I was a betting man I’d say the one camp won’t civically agree to a consensus if one is reached not in their favor. Also, I find it highly suspect that the one user is newly created and nearly exclusively has edits on this page, and all the IPs seem to agree with him (and those IPs also are also almost only focused on this page). Not sure if there’s enough there for a sockpuppet case here or what, but is there anything that can be done here to just resolve it and stop with all the reverts and passive-aggressive remarks (by some users)? This isn’t my area of expertise, took me 20 minutes just to find the RFC page, much less how to ask for third-party opinion or Admin intervention. Hope to hear your thoughts, cheers! TropicAces (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces


 * I would recommend WP:AN/EW based on FussbussSOhush's rampant edit warring as seen here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Millicent Simmonds
Is it worth adding an "also known as"? When younger, she went by Millie Warren. You can find a few articles from her elementary years that mention her by this name [1 ], [2 ], [3 ]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.59.142 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, good question. Considering that "Warren" has not come up in any of the sources that talk about her as an actress, I am not sure if it is noteworthy enough for inclusion. It may be a family matter that has yet to be covered in the sources. If it comes up later, we could include it, though likely not in the opening sentence. Likely in the article body somewhere since it is not important enough per WP:LEAD. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. There is also this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.59.142 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

‎RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

History of the World in Three Minutes Flat

 * Thank you for putting another source for this film other than the ones cited on the page. :) Espngeek (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I saw the activity on a recent-changes page and had a few minutes to get involved. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

So how are you doing?
Hi, we used to be friends over a decade ago when I was on this site regularly, I'm not sure if you remember that. But I remember you, so I wanna know how you're doing. I'm doing great, I have a great career on YouTube now. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I had to check the talk-page archives, but I remember you now. I'm glad you're doing great and have found success on YouTube. Everything is great with me as well IRL. Still doing the same kind of work with films, though my tastes have changed over the years. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Posters
As you seem to know the deal with movie posters I'd appreciate if you could check The_Peanut_Butter_Falcon. I made a note on the talk page when the poster changed Talk:The_Peanut_Butter_Falcon from a photographic poster, to an illustrated poster (links on talk page) but it isn't entirely clear to me what the official poster should be (or if it's worth anyone's time to get it changed back) but I'd prefer if people would try to follow the rules. If it is not too much trouble, thanks in advance. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
 * List of film director and actor collaborations ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_film_director_and_actor_collaborations check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_film_director_and_actor_collaborations?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to Ben Johnson, Michelle Williams, Doug Jones, John Hughes and Harry Carey

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

List of films created with davinci resolve
Wikipedia already has a similar list with reliable sources on the Blackmagic Fusion Wikipedia article. However, this new list is relating to DaVinci Resolve rather than simply Blackmagic Fusion’s use in feature films. Also, Blackmagic Fusion has since been integrated into Davinci Resolve like a successor to the program which should explain the overlap in films listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googleuser (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to talk page
You are invited to the talk page on WP:FILM to discuss the issues with the format of 2019 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Wikipedia Procreative Writers. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation
You are invited to this section of MOS:FILM about the issues with the format of 2019 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Red link
Inviting you to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Red link since you were the editor who made the changes to the page that made the example (by my thoughts) obsolete. Banana Republic (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Grand Illusion RM
Hello Erik. Call it gaming the system or whatever, I would request you to have another look at the previous RM, a lot of opposing statements were made solely on the basis of the fact that the new page would need to be disambiguated. (And some others due to the consensus of the other RM in 2012, despite it being 7 years old.) Whereas according to Wikipedia policy, the original Grand Illusion disambiguation page has absolutely no reason to be named "Grand Illusion" since a primary topic clearly exists, which is, of course, the film. That is why this time I nominated the original disambiguation page alongside the film page. Would appreciate if you comment on that issue too, besides just accusing me of stuff. This is very clearly not the same discussion since this time it involves two pages and not just one. I have so far followed official procedures everywhere as was required. All I am trying to do is start a genuine conversation, which surprisingly very few editors have been interested in. Regards. Cinema Clown (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You want the same outcome that you did not get two weeks ago. It's as simple as that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is something I'm not denying. Would you please care to comment about why my reasons are wrong since none really clearly did that the last time? And by that, I mean for both the pages and not just the convenient one. Cinema Clown (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is, if consensus is against you, walk away and work on something else. I've been disappointed in some outcomes and have done just that. It's never going to be an encyclopedia the way any one person wants it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Invitation
You are invited to WP:FILM about the issue of formats that started on 2019 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)