User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 3

Magnascope
Hi, the impression I got from looking it up in google groups was that it just zoomed onto the film, effectively cropping it, but displaying it as a widescreen image would be shown on a 4:3 TV. However, it was not really widescreen as no "wide screen" was actually involved. Right angle 16:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also from what I can gather, the film "Old Ironsides" only had a few of these magnascope sequences, most of the film was projected normally. Right angle 16:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies and links- so basically it wasn't wide in any sense, it was just expanded, but keeping the same aspect ratio? I notice in the article Happy Days (1929 film) it mentions that Napoléon (film) which was made in 1927 had some widescreen sequences- maybe this should be mentioned in the Widescren article? Right angle 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tiffen
The article has been in place for nearly a month, yet offers no indication of how the company is notable. Nuttah68 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Kinetoscope and FAC
I think it's ready for it--and so am I. I was going to try to get down to the library toward the end of this week to see if there was anything in "Light and Movement" that was directly relevant. Maybe you can tell me if there any documents by Edison or Dickson in it. If not, I'm happy to do FAC straight away. P.S. Could you reassess Film Booking Offices of America? I think work there is now pretty much complete.—DCGeist 02:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. I've got some free time Friday afternoon, so I'll look to spend a couple hours with the Mannoni; incorporate whatever might turn out to be useful for the article by the beginning of next week, and then do the FAC.—DCGeist 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Got to the library a bit behind schedule--more than worth it. As you said, a treasure trove. Kinetoscope FAC'd. Best, Dan—DCGeist 17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Kodacolor
Hi there, I don't mind you moving the two article pages, but in future can you please fix the links using "what links here"? Thanks. Fourohfour 10:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Panavision FAR
Sorry Girolamo, but I felt that I should nominate Panavision for Featured article review. The article was promoted before the FA standards were raised, so I feel that it does not meet the necessary criteria when stacking up against more current FA's, such as 35 mm film. Rather than using the template, I thought I'd let you know personally, and I believe that you are making incredible contributions to Wikipedia on subjects that I pretend to know lots of stuff about, but don't really. It might take some work, but I believe that the article can be brought up to current standards within with work (I don't have any sources for references, but there must be some kicking around somewhere). Hope you understand, Green451 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Panavision has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.


 * Sandy (Talk) 21:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Film
Hey I have an excellent idea. Why not just keep the navigation box never delete this it is brilliant but for the countries that have a great number of films and that already have agreat number of articles on wikipedia redirect to category. E.g List of American films there is no point in creating a new list when catwegory has listed most of them automativally anyway. I suggest placing the navigatin box in the categories of country films. However for the countries that as yet do not have entries aor many films yet on wikipedia I suggest kepping these lists. Then once the films develop and a fuller list is created then redirect to categories. Look beleive it or not I would rather not have to create lists unneccesaarily I have redircted both American and British films but i really do think the serve as a start for foreign films which are not on wikipedia. Even for Finnish films once the articles develop and becomes fuller then delete the lists and redirect to categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

However most countries as yet do not have the majority of notable films covered so I suggest the lists are drawn up for most of them and once they develop redirect to categories and remove the unotable films and then delete the lists. American films and British films I have already redirected to category and maybe french film. I will also be drawing uo naviagation boxes of Film by genre and List of actors and List of Film Directors by country and on that I will be redirecting to the categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC

Th lists may serve as a temporary purpose to see what is missing from foreign films. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

SP FAC
There's two little-yet-important things I'm holding out for: a soundclip from Adore and a reworking of the MACHINA paragraph so it's more encyclopedic. Unfortunately I can't do much about either or else I would have taken care of them by now. Once those are taken care of, and the citation tags are either replaced with citations or the uncited material is removed, then I will personally nominate the article. WesleyDodds 11:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I finally put the article up for FAC. I'd appreciate your help fixing anything reviewers might bring up. WesleyDodds 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anamorphic Split
G - this response is also on my page where you left the comment:

That's actually a great idea. On a side note - do you have any idea why the 2.35, 2.39, 2.40? section of that article isn't showing up? I can't figure out why. It's in the code, there seems to be no supressing code before or after it - but that whole section is not showing up in the article... Very confused. Splitting the article is a great idea. I'd be very happy to divorce this between video anamorphic and photographic anamorphic - which are the same "squeeze" concepts, but VERY different otherwise. Ironically I'm in the middle of another debate on 2.35/2.40... Seems to be the season for widescreen discussions. I would support the split wholeheartedly.

Dexter is a great show. It was a lot of fun to be part of it. I intentionally didn't read the last script of the season to save some element of surprise. :) LACameraman 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) LACameraman 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tags
No problem. And, actually, I knew they didn't have entirely identical scopes. Unfortunately, the categorization as it exists makes it kind of hard to differentiate, so, when it seemed like there was an ambiguity, I did take the safe course and opt for including both. I did notice that Filmmaking now says it has classified all of its articles, which I hadn't noticed before. They have my sincerest praise for having done so, considering so many others haven't, and I will refrain from any further tagging with their banner. Again, my apologies for any inconvenience. Badbilltucker 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Film External Links
But they were added that way anyway. Why should AMG be first when almost all the film pages in Wikipedia have a link to IMDb on them and not Wikipedia. When people add them, they just add them to the top of the list. Plus, notability is how Wikipedia runs, you deleting that link as "spam" was notability, it has the exact same infomation as AMG and IMDb, but not as notable (or trusted). I agree with your deletion, just not your statment about ordering being POV. Would you expect a fansite to go before an official site? Cbrown1023 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, wait... that spam link messed me up! I forget they were alphabetical, sorry. :) Dang, spam!  I'm gonna put a little editor's message so no one forgets next time. :) Cbrown1023 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Scope of sound film article
I had thought it was clear that sound film was essentially an historical article, covering the emergence and adoption of—and initial adaptation to—the technology, an approach flagged by the conclusion of the first-sentence definition of "sound film": "as opposed to a silent film." At the end of the article we have the advisory "See also: Category:Film sound production for articles concerning the development of cinematic sound recording." My feeling is that covering the major latter-day developments you mention within the present article would make it unwieldy, but I have no philosophical opposition to the general idea. My doubts, I guess, center on the fact that after the mid-1930s, the connections between the technological developments in sound film and the broader industrial/commercial/aesthetic/cultural issues seem considerably more tenuous and that, consequently, coverage of those developments is better suited to specific technology-oriented articles. Tell me what you were thinking--something like retitling the "Consequences" section "Short-term consequences" and creating a new "Later developments" section? I don't know if I'd be inspired to write that, but if you felt that was the way to go and a volunteer could be recruited, I'd be happy to edit it to make it consistent with the rest of the article.

On your specific point about how the "technology section doesn't really cover variable density vs. variable area formats," that's true. In the preceding chronological survey, there is the following passage: "Unlike Fox-Case's Movietone and De Forest's Phonofilm, which were variable-density systems, Photophone was a variable-area system—a refinement in the way the audio signal was inscribed on film that would ultimately become the rule." My feeling is that a more detailed technical discussion of the differences between variable-area and variable-density and how one beat out the other is better suited to the sound-on-film article. I've read enough to know that I'm not the best equipped person to go into much greater detail on this matter. Again, I'm happy to edit as appropriate. Best, Dan—DCGeist 23:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just added a detail I found on the transition to variable-area format to the Technology section.—DCGeist 22:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have further added a substantial quote to the discussion of Lauste in "Early steps" and a major parenthetical to the introduction of RCA Photophone in "Triumph of the talkies." Let me know if you consider these improvements--I'm especially unsure about the quote, which may be a bit dense (I mean, I barely get it).—DCGeist 09:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Film/Filmmaking Collaboration
Seems like a great idea! We should definately do that, if I get a confirmation from you, I'll put it in the newsletter and post a message on the Films talk page. For right now, I've semi-protected the Film page. Cbrown1023 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins
hey how come the festival news I reported on their site keeps getting deleted?

Notice
This is to inform you that WikiProject Films/Categorization has started. Any contributions in further developing it are warmly welcome. Hoverfish Talk 15:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Film sound
OK, I slept on it and here's my initial thoughts on waking:


 * I think sound film is most commonly used in relation and opposition to silent film--i.e., primarily in aesthetic, commercial, and more generally cultural contexts, with its technological denotation essential but secondary. Thus, I think the "sound film" article is of greatest utility in something like its present form.


 * I think the article you are envisioning is absolutely necessary and that its logical title is "film sound." As you can see, that currently redirects to sound-on-film, which is clearly undesirable in the long run. "Film sound," while summarizing the relevant historical material in "sound film," would have technology as its primary focus, with more detail on everything from Edison to Lauste to Vitaphone etc. and then further through stereo etc. on to the present day. I think, again, that this reflects the natural and most common use of the term in question; it also suggests a pleasingly logical structure for the article, one that could rely almost wholly (though not unbendingly) on straightforward chronology.

All the best and an early happy new year, Dan—DCGeist 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing Films
Hi, and Happy New Year. I think we should avoid having various sections on categorizing. What I worked on and you turned to "Other methods" is actually no other method but the existing one. I just tried to display it in a more organized way than just listing all categories. Surely some are more important and some not at all, but this could all be presented in one section only. I would like to work with you on merging the two sections, so as to keep all your points plus a clearer grouping of (existing and proposed) categories. I find your additions very helpful, by the way. Hoverfish Talk 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See Category:American films I have split it by decade and then again by year as when eveything is categorized as Hoverfish siad there should be tens times the number of films. Also the year categories are far from complete potentially there should bve ten times more films in each each. So the best place to start is rather than category 2006 films and category American films articles under this criteria become Category:2006 American films. It kills two birds with one stone so to speak. It splits up the year categories by country of production and the country categories by year. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know but everybody is so slow and many many pages are so put of control it is ridiculous. See Category:2006 films should be sorted asap. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest you start doing somethin useful rather than criticising. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you have made some good edits its just once again there is only hoohaa about my work because people don't know me. I have described my intentions on the category project talk and will set up the inevitable categories for you all. Category:Drama films and all the other genres will also be split by year and country. So each article should also have e.g Category:1996 drama films and Category:1990s American drama films in adition to the combined year and country category. But if you think it best to adjust all the categories as we go through instead of my just making a slight adjustment to country and year to start with then I will wait. But I'll set up the categories so you see what I mean. Also English language films should be split by year e.g 1985 English language films. All the best and I wish you would get to know me beofre having the assumption that my work cannot possibly be useful Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:American films is on like ten different pages and majority of American films on wikipedia are not categroized as American so it is obvious to split by year organized neatly by decade. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is exactly what I mean. E/g 1979 American films and 1979 drama films this is right- (absolutely not Category:1979 American drama films). I thought Category:1970s American drama films might also be useful to atempt to list a genre within a decade. But those first two you and I mentioned should be the goal of all this Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Action films. I beleive each major genre should be split into three sub categories like I have done. Action films by year, Action films by country and Action film series - I just orgainzed the loose ones such as Bond, Dirty Harry etc into one category. ALmost all articles should aside from the country and year category should have genre categories e.g 1979 action films and American action films/ or if this was too big Category:1970s American action films. These categories also fit in other categories such as American films by genre under American. So in the end everything ties together and is organized correctly and neatly. I beleive you have a good knowledge of film technics? Do you beleive most article sshould have a category e.g Films shot using a 35mm etc? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is for example 2 Fast 2 Furious. Rather than in the huge main category Action films this would now have two categories 1.Category:2003 action films for all action films released in 2003     and 2.American action films or Category:2000s American action films. for all American action films Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm quite ready to accept that my idea of giving more composite categories (year, country, genre) is not good. But giving many categories which repeat the year, or country, should be avoided IMO. Hoverfish Talk 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you on about? We agreed that American films should be sorted. Please don't do this. I don't want to waste my timeErnst Stavro Blofeld 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How dare you belittle me like this. I have never created a gigantic mess so do not insult me. Isn't it common sense that a hundred thousand or so films doesn't go in one category!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Look this is inevitable. I wouldn't have started on this if I had known you would revert everything. Pleas espeak to me. I state my intentions on the talk page but very few people sho an interest. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

FOR GODS SAKE STOP WASTING YOUR TIME. IF FOR SOME REASON THE CONSENSUS DOESN;T AGREE WITH THIS THEN YOU CAN RECORRECT AFTERWARDS. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then if you have no faith in my work you are a fool. Sorry I only want to sub category and seperate American films from the rest - all other films released in a certain year can go in the main categories. Sorry mate but do you realise how many films we are talking about each year. You again think potnetially tens of thousands of films in one category is the solution. DO you realise how many films were released globally and may eventually have an article on wikipedia for example in 2006 and you still think this should house every film on the planet in that year? When the sensible thing to do is clearly to break it up into large sub categories? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then I owe you an apology. I promise from now on I'll wait before making major changes. And this is a promise. Clearly you and the others would show me far more respect not actually from my ideas and contributions to the project but by waiting patiently. A lesson is learned. I beleived that the restructuring of the giant categories was inevitable and this is what you were going to do this is why I went ahead. I apologize if you have had to correct anythin but you are making amajor mistake if you delete any sensible new American categores  Are we OK? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ALl the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if you feel you need to revert my edits. Sorry I thought I was making a good start. I have finally learned my lesson so can we discuss things rather than making me feel terrible about my efforts to help?.

I am a little confused because this following message you left on the categorization talk page is exactly what I am thinking and what I know is the right thing to do:

"For the rather huge categories, such as American films, this probably is a good place for intersection categories. Doing by year is possibly a way through it, such as Category:American 1973 films, which could then be a subcat of both Category:American films (or possibly Category:American films by year) as well as Category:1973 films. This should only be encouraged for national cinemas with unwieldy numbers of articles (greater than 1000?). The other thing worth noting is that this intersection categorization can only be done for films solely the product of one country. Otherwise you have the odd situation of putting a film into the categories Category:American 1973 films, Category:French films, and Category:1973 films, for example. Perhaps there can be categories for co-productions, like Category:American-French coproductions. To minimize naming conflicts, the convention would be naming them in alphabetical order

I totally agree with this and thought it inevitable. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Anyway many of those reverted films originally didn;t have the category American films they just had the year - so at least those films now are categorized as American. However if you won't talk about this with me how can you expect me to discuss it? I don't know what to do - I tthink I deserve a second chance. If I change any categories again before the consensus is reached then you can shun me - I promise I'll keep my word. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Report in Categories for discussion
I am an edit away for reporting all new categories for deletion. I do not intend to place AfD's on each category, but to give the story as is to some administrator(s) in Categories for discussion. However I do want to hear from you if you think this is necessary. I wouldn't like to create unnecessary delays waiting for busy admins to act. Inspite of the good and useful side of Blofeld's contributions, this pressure he puts on categorizig should be stopped asap. Thank you for cleaning up, by the way. Hoverfish Talk 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of inuse tag
Article looks great! Additionally I might recommend adding the inuse tag, editing, then if you are done for a while (say more than a couple of hours) removing the tag, then re-adding when you get ready to edit again. The tag was designed to prevent edit conflicts while you are doing an active edit. Try WP:LOCK. Keep up the good work! Regards, Navou banter  06:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition needed
Hi, I didn't want to edit your categorizing instructions, as they are written very nicely. But there is a point missing in Intersections. Users and new members should follow existing combinations. For example Year-Country films categories should not be created unless the project decides it's wise to. That's not so imperative when creating an isolated cat for something down the line, but it certaily is when this action could open the way for big numbers of resulting intersections. If you agree, could you add a paragraph on it? Hoverfish Talk 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your additions in Years in film. In what sense do you mean "imdb is not comprehensive"? Did you compare the lists with it? I would be interested to know where you fished all these films articles from. Also I would be interested to know if you think we should move all "Films released in YYYY" in a series of Lists of films by year (which E.S.Blofeld had started anyway, but they are just redirects to categories YYYY films currently). Hoverfish Talk 09:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Releases" sounds good. My only worry for having the lists of releases in the years, is that if all existing articles of each year are entered (without of some limiting factor), the size of the page will become way too big. The world cinema filmography is growing lately as well. Anyway, no big worries yet. - I have another thing itching to ask you, nothing to do with developing articles. In high-school we did come across your username (sorry to get so username-personal). It was in religion, so all was in the context of "all these guys were wrong, therefore we (orthodox) are right". So I never payed much attention, but did store the name. So a while ago I looked up the relevant article and filled up my educational gap. Yet, if I got it right, G.S. would pile all the movies released in all the years and make a very big bonfire out of them. But you don't seem to be of this school of thought. So, my question is: is there another side of G.S. I failed to catch? Hoverfish Talk 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Been a While
Hey G -

Jeeze... I get a little busy, skip away for a while and come back to see you're ruling the universe! :) The project looks great. Very happy to see 35mm Film made FA! I'm a little overwhelmed and intimated about where to jump back in. Is Panavision still up for review or was that settled? I never got a chance to get back to the ASC to pick up the two main articles for citations - but I can if we're still having an issue. Congrats on all the great work - let me know where I can be most useful. All the best LACameraman 09:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Panavision
Are you able to work on this some more per the concerns raised on its featured article review? Another user did some work yesterday. Marskell 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Girolamo. I am going to try to get the references straightened out for this article this weekend. If you have some time, perhaps we can work together on it. It's a great article, and I would hate to see it lose its FA status. Cheers, Jeffpw 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got about half of it done now (surprisingly easy to find the refs) and added a nice image that I think will hold up under Fair Use scrutiny. Let me know what you think. Jeffpw 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just completed all of the referencing. I added approx 50 new inline citations. I'm taking a short break and will copyedit this evening. Let me know what you think. Jeffpw 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

By studio
Do you have any roughly approximate idea of how many American studios (not independent) there are and how many films each might have produced? Hoverfish Talk 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, instead of Cat:American-British co-productions, wouldn't it be better Cat:American-British films ? Like this we follow suit with existing categories. Hoverfish Talk 14:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mutual Broadcasting System
Never heard back from you about my take on sound film vs. film sound. No, I'm not assuming that silence equals agreement, merely that you're busy.

I write you concerning another matter, in the hopes that you're not too busy. I've put Mutual Broadcasting System up for FAC, my first such venture outside of cinema. (You precipitated my very first FAC, as you may recall.) I know radio's not your bailiwick...that's precisely why I'm requesting your input. It's not mine either (this happened not one but two steps down from a cinematic interest--RKO Pictures via RKO General). I respect your opinion highly. If you have the time and interest, I'd appreciate it if you took a look and weighed in or whether or not you see it as up to snuff. With Kinetoscope, say, I knew; here, I only think I know. Best, Dan—DCGeist 08:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask for help
Hi

Would you please do me a favor? I have seen you are a member of Film wiki project. Then I would like to ask you to take a look at Abbas Kiarostami, an article that I am currently working on. I would like to have your comments to improve the article. Any helps will be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot for your time. Sangak 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Kinetescope and blacklist
It seems to have already been fixed, somehow... Cbrown1023 talk 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Need people with an opinion
Hey there. I noticed that in the past, you have participated in a discussion about Filmoraphies and lists of works in general here. There is now a RfC discussing this and more aspects here. It would be nice if you took a look and gave your comments on those matters. Thank you. theroachmanTC 10:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Color film (motion picture)
G -

Saw that you removed the WikiProject History of photography project from the Color film (motion picture). Although I agree with you that it's a bit beyond the scope of their project - is there really any problem with having more eyeballs and contributors to an article? Is it bad to have more than one project associated with an article? I'm working to get this article to FA status and think - the more the merrier. Am I wrong? All the best LACameraman 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Figured you had a good reason. I'm totally fine with dropping the parenthetical - would make it easier to search for. I originally made the title with the parenthetical as I thought that was proper Wiki format, at the time. Good idea to dump it. I'm surprised, actually, that what we've put into this article does not overlap considerably with Color photography - which is good. The world of color photography, in general, is very vast and convoluted - but the story of color motion pictures is a little more concise. I'm still trying to refine the article for more "mass audience" reading (about 1/3 of the way through) and clean it up in anticipation of the FA application process (basing my judgments solely on the Panavision FARC process (woof, that was tough - but really made for a much better article in the long run)). Any contributions you may have - please dive right in. There are a lot of smaller early color systems that are not represented as I couldn't find verifiable sources for them - but I also question how many smaller processes need to be in there? In any case - let's drop the parenthetical (I'm not sure how to change a title). LA can be tough - but Local 600 is a good union and - if you can legally work in the US - not impossible to get into. All the bestLACameraman 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Some lists of films and a category for deletion
Hi, I wanted to let you know that some lists of films are up for deletion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization. Hoverfish Talk 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment scale
Hi, I just saw your comments here, and wondered if you could give us your thoughts on this proposal? Thanks, Walkerma 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Film CfD's
Hi Girolamo, we've had lately some film-related deletions with almost no notifications in the project. Now we have a problem with some Russian/Soviet period film categories that got merged. The discussion is taking place in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, so please, give us your opinion. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I too strongly agree with you that it should be Filmaker -the idea would be to incorporate direcotrs with producers/ cinematographers editor etc- the characters than make the films. What do you think about it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Genre in categorization
Hi, I think we have to leave genre there, as it is the most practiced and applied way. The vast majority of films are categorized (or stub-categorized) by genre. It's not a question of objectiveness rather than one of how we are used to relate to films. I will copy this also in the categorization talk. Hoverfish Talk 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added practical instructions at the bottom of film categorization. The reason is... well, practical. Often one categorizer follows other categorizers and changes all they have done, removes some categories as redundant, rearranges some, pulls the stub template up within (or over) the categories. Things like this, which make us have to go back to work already done and re-done and fix things again. So instead of giving instructions in user pages (which, to my surprize, are most welcome), I create this section, which can then be disussed and adjusted, if needed. Please, let me know if you find it useful. The genre thing, from what I see, is the most commonly given one. Even in films where most basic categories are still missing, you rarely find genre missing (but often wrongly given). So if we are going to have it, we might as well have it in some order. Hoverfish Talk 08:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting categories
Unfortunately somebody is messing up the Category:Canadian films by creating all sorts of sub categories. If we made the decision to only have one American film category then we should definately only have one for this. Do you think we should propose the categories for deletion? THe category is supossed to list all Canadian films A-Z not be split into many ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am affraid we have to discuss it all over again. The issue is currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization. Hoverfish Talk 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Girolamo. Yes imdb is considerably more flawed than I previously thought. New missing films are being added everyday and even then it is difficult to know if it is entirely accurate particularly from non anglo american/english cultures -Wisekwai has told me the majoirty of the imdb listing for Thai films are flawed and have incorrect translations wring cast details etc. Also have you thought about joining WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers to take care of articles on actors and film biogrpahies? I would welcome you with open arms to join -we need as many capable users as possible ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 09:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I don't think we need it right now. As far as I can tell, there's 4 or 5 other people besides myself watching this page that can fix things when they need to be fixed. While the edits are unnecessary, they are generally in good faith (epeople think something should be mentioned on the Smashing Pumpkins page without knowing too much about Wiki guidelines). If it was outright vandalism or POV-pushing I'd feel differently, but right now it's just a minor inconvenience that I don't think we needs to stress about. WesleyDodds 00:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page.
Recently, you left a Template:Test3 on my talk page. This template, as you know, asks me to cease my vandalism of Wikipedia. You did not, however, use any of the parameters that allow you to cite an example. So, since it seems that the only page we have both edited recently is Talk:Tilt-shift photography, I assume that's what you're talking about.

Vandalism identifies one of the types of vandalism as:
 * Talk page vandalism: Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion.

This is exactly what User:Jeff dean did. Naturally, I restored the removed comment (which happened to be mine). Where I became a vandal in all this is not clear to me. Perhaps you can clarify? — The Storm Surfer 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is not a rhetorical request. The Storm Surfer 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Film leader
Thanks. Doing my best... jhawkinson 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

35 mm film as main page FA
I had previously scheduled this article to be the main page FA last September. You requested that I postpone it indefinitely while you tweaked it. I'd like to schedule it. Are you finished tweaking it? Raul654 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)