User talk:Gertanis

Re: "Looking for Now"
Thanks for expanding "Looking for Now". I hope you'll consider expanding the redirects for other episodes of Looking, too! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been nominated for deletion. I posted some additional sources on the talk page, if you are interested in expanding. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I was indeed planning to create articles on the other episodes. I'm reluctant to do so now, however, as they might all be deleted, eventually :(. I'm wasting my time here; I think I can find more rewarding work elsewhere on WP. Gertanis (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

About an FAC
Hello Gertanis. I've responded to all your comments on Featured article candidates/Marcel Lihau/archive1. Please drop by to indicate whether you find my response satisfactory or if you have additional comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Peer Review of Lucius Neratius Marcellus
Thanks. I was hoping someone without any strong background in Imperial Roman history would look at this & point out any issues I might miss. Now for two responses not really related to Peer Review:
 * That  at the beginning of the article appears to have appeared when you added a link in the lead paragraph. Were you using Visual Editor on this article? If so, this might be a bug. Otherwise, I have no idea where it came from..
 * You wrote: "You really like semicolons, don't you?" -- Well, it's a perfectly good punctuation mark, so why shouldn't I use it? -- llywrch (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Kurosawa edits
You requested I contact you here on your talk page regarding Silence. As you have likely seen, the Kurosawa nomination was deflected due to asserted copyright issues with an image of Dostoevsky from the 1800s and others. This was a remarkable claim to make, though it points to the fact that similar criticism for the images for the Silence article will likely meet the same challenge to each one of its images which come from Wikicommons. Therefore, I asked on the peer review page if you might be active in your native language Wikipedia in order to ask if you might contact someone there familiar with image policy for assistance in representing the images for Silence here on English Wikipedia. I could not find such an editor on English Wikipedia expert on images for Kurosawa. All of the images, including the oil work reproduction in Silence, will be challenged as copyright violations because they come from Wikicommons from centuries past, just like the Dostoevski image which was rejected for the Kurosawa article. If you know someone in your native language Wikipedia who is expert at images at Wikicommons then perhaps they could help represent the images in the Silence article after I begin addressing your review comments in detail. I have read the two film articles you indicated, and possibly you have a more sophisticated outline in mind for the Silence article enhancements similar to the two film articles you indicated. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. As I stated in the Kurosawa FAC, I am no expert on images, I only happen to know that the image policy is extremely strict over there. Pointing to usage in other languages or other projects (like Wikimedia Commons) will rarely help you—you'll have to comply with the prerogatives given by Nikkimaria. On the other hand, the images on the Silence page look fine to my (untrained eye). I think we could wait with that point until FAC. Please have a look at the other comments I have given: these are on subjects I happen to know a few things about (prose, cinema, structure, etc.). Gertanis (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In general, the purpose of Wikicommons is to provide reliable images for Wikipedia editors to share in articles which do not have the type of problems which the use of raw images from the general internet might present. For Kurosawa, each and every image of the twelve used was found unreliable and rejected as a copyright violation. The images from Silence will in all likelihood be challenged one-by-one as well, and could use the help of an expert on images, preferably from admin. If you could think about whether you know such an image expert in you native language Wikipedia, then it would make the enhancement and future review process easier. The El Greco image used in Silence is several centuries old and will be challenged just like the Dostoevski image from the 19th century was rejected for copyvio even though there is no protection for copyrights from the 19th century. Separately, regarding your knowledge of prose, cinema, and structure, it would be appropriate to give your version of the details of the outline for the Silence article as you envision seeing it completed based on your previous reference to the exemplary articles for Tenebrae (film) and Banshun. The more detail in your envisioned outline the better. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I have been pretty detailed in my review, but I can reiterate and simplify my imperatives: reduce the number of quotes; paraphrase the reception section; add more on cinematic influences (Bresson & Mizoguchi); tidy the prose; move analysis section further up. Granted, the film is rather new, so there isn't that much academic review (yet) to cite. We can only use the sources at hand. There a few more citations given in a box at the top of Talk:Silence (2016 film); please feel free to include them when expanding the article. Best of luck, Gertanis (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice to meet you
Sorry about inadvertently saving the correction of an OLD version of your user page, restored. Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Lovely to meet you too, Gerda. The idea about a separate article on Wagner's music in cinema is a good one, as there's plenty of material to draw on. --Gertanis (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Similarly, I wrote four articles about Messiah that had no room in the FA. - Whenever you see the little star in the upper right corner, think twice before making ANY changes ;) - I remember having inserted my friend's cello concerto in Cello concerto, - it didn't stay long ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I do, however, still find that list to be a bit arbitrary. Coppola should be there, for sure, yet the others I find more curious. And why no 8½? Doesn't matter at the end of the day though, what matters is the creation of content. I find the whole process of FAC extremely alluring, I hope to be able to spend more time there. Cheers, Gertanis (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Before spending time writing FAs, you can start right away to review them. I commented 2 FAC the last few days and learned a lot. The last one I nominated didn't go well, so I am a bit cautious, but I know already what the next one will be. - I had the good luck to be invited to team up with experienced writers for the first, - you can easily guess: Messiah. - I spent some time on the FAC of Wagner, but focused on his music and life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You are right, that is a very good way to go about it. I recently commended Smerus for his beautiful work on Claudio Montiverdi, a composer of whom I knew very little. The FA stage is indeed one of the very best parts of Wikipedia. Gertanis (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you see that Smerus and I almost met? (Thread Hike, on his talk) - Monteverdi was improved with Brianboulton, who invited me to Messiah. - Nice start to the table! Even when sortable, I'd sort for something initially, perhaps chronology? "Sortable" should not appear in explanation and header, because on some devices, sorting is not possible. - I wonder about Der fliegende Holländer, - the only Wagner opera (he didn't use the term for the more mature works) with an English title. He wrote in German ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Chartwell
Thanks for this. I've not seen it before. That said, I'm not sure I necessarily like the resulting page appearance, but let's see if any others have views. As an aside, His Father's Son was by Winston Churchill (1940-2010), not WSC. I've corrected. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC) KJP1 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi, don't feel obligated, but could I ask for your thoughts at my current peer review? It's a familiar topic so I thought it would pique your interest. Regards, Slightly  mad  05:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami
Hi. Would you be able to close Talk:Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami/GA1. If you need help doing so let me know. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you have edited since this message so I assume you have seen it. Individual reassessments are closed by the editors that opened them. If you are unable to or have abandoned the process then let me know and I will close it for you. If I don't get a response in the next few days I will just assume that it is abandoned and close it anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)