User talk:Gothicfilm

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Gothicfilm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --IllaZilla (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Monkey Planet
Thanks for finding and adding those refs! Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä  (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:George Kenner - artist at Frith Hill PoW Camp 1915-picnik crop contrast.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:George Kenner - artist at Frith Hill PoW Camp 1915-picnik crop contrast.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Rise of the Planet of the Apes
I'm trying desperately to remember, but I could swear Armando refers to Milo as "Caesar" at the very end of Escape, as the chimp starts uttering "ma ma, ma ma." I was certain, but then I may be recollecting a comic book version of the film. Please correct me if I'm incorrect. –TashTish (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the third film Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Armando didn't refer to him by name in the last scene - he just quietly said "Intelligent creature... But so were your mother and father." Then Armando walks away - the camera moves in on Milo, who starts making some vocal sounds: "Mama... Mama..." My assumption is Armando first heard him talk at some later point. At any rate, the name "Caesar" is not heard until the fourth film, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

George Kenner/German ed.
Hi Gothicfilm, I have made some alterations in your german article in regard of sentence structure and proper German. I hope I didn't chance too much of the contents of what you where trying to say. Let me know if you have the feeling I did too much. Best wishes.--Trannyl (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help...! - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the wrong instructions
HelloGothicfilm. I didn't want to clutter up the conversation on the infobox page. I apologize if I gave you the wrong instructions. I know that the preferences work differently for different browsers but I don't know all the ins and outs of those differences. You may not be able to get it to work for you so again my apologies. On another note I appreciate your username as it ties into the Gothic Theater in which I have spent many enjoyable hours over the years. First as a movie theater when I was young (I saw Ben (film) there when I was very young) and then as a venue for live music (The Squirrel Nut Zippers were great there.) Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't think there was a way to set a non-collapsing navbox preference. It doesn't appear to be a browser issue.  I'm glad the Gothic Theater is still going, though I have no connection to it, never having lived in Colorado...! - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Space Needle = Googie architecture?? source please
I've got a problem with Googie architecture. Folks like to place any example of unusual or fantastic architecture into this style without any sources. That's clearly original research. Please see my note at the bottom of the Googie talk page. So please include a source if you want to say that the Space Needle is googie. If not I'll revert back to the absence of a statement tomorrow. Thanks,

Smallbones (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly a fan of the term Googie architecture, but is does exist and its article uses the Space Needle image as its prime example. A small mention of this has been there on the Space Needle page for at least four years without any problem until you challenged and deleted it. I simply restored it.  I don't have time to go hunting for a ref for something that has been there for so long.  As I said, you shouldn't need a ref cluttering an image description when the link Googie architecture explains all. If there was really a problem with WP:Original Research others would have challenged it over the last four years. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No source, challenged (for about a month now), removed, reverted, asked politely for a source, no source given ==> I should remove it again.  Feel free to have any admin tell me if I'm doing anything wrong here.  Smallbones (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

PA4: The Director's Cut
"Paranormal Activity 4: The Director's Cut " has been acquired by Paramount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.6.163 (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no such film. This guy likes to create his own YouTube and Facebook pages, title them after well known films and then announce them on WP. When someone reverts his "contributions", he usually doesn't hesitate to revert it back. Check on his history here: Special:Contributions/72.178.6.163 -- Gothicfilm (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Alien running time
Just because a source is not online does not mean it "cannot be verified". All of the relevant publication info is included in the citation, so if you wish to track down the book to verify the info, feel free. Print sources are, in most cases, superior to online sources due to the intangible and ever-changing nature of the internet. Challenging a source is one thing; claiming that cited information "cannot be verified", simply because the source is print rather than web and you can't be bothered to track it down, is quite another. Per WP:BRD, please take the topic to the article's talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The British Board of Film Classification actually measures the print of the film they are classifying to the nearest foot and frame - reviewers and other "reliable sources" rely on secondary sources. So their data is not as reliable. We don't know how your source got his running time of 119, so therefore it's unreliable in a real sense, even if I could see the book.  I doubt he measured a film print. My real objection to what you're doing here is not so much listing a runtime of 119 instead of a rounded up 117 -- no, my real problem is having the first reference in this otherwise very good article say something which is false - namely The cinematic release of the film ran 119 minutes, while later video and DVD versions ran 116 minutes due to the different frame rates between film and video. If McIntee were correct, every DVD would be three minutes shorter than the theatrical release.  That's obviously not the case.  According to BBFC figures I've checked on several films, including  Alien, there's only a difference of around 10 seconds, if that.  So rounded up to the nearest minute, for our purposes on WP, theatrical and DVD running times are going to be the same if the film hasn't been re-edited.  Alien should be listed at 117 minutes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Saturn 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done - it now goes to Billy Williams (cinematographer). - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars?!
Thanks! Lately, I have taken to undertake "rescue" missions, and even providing a modicum of references will often suffice to prevent an article from being "chopped and diced". My main interest as you can probably gather from my resume, is aviation history, but I have waded into other areas including classic films, being a sometime documentary filmmaker. Thanks again, call anytime. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

Hitchcock cameo
how can it be a possible cameo?? either its him or its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.118 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It does appear it is not Hitchcock: Talk:List of Hitchcock cameo appearances - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your antivandalism work
Hi. I noticed that you'd cleaned up after a vandal who fooled with Academy Award for Best Film Editing, which is on my watchlist, and with quite a few other pages. Thanks for your work! Easchiff (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been after that guy for weeks. After his spree yesterday I labeled my reverts More made-up credits from this persistent IP hopper so others watching those pages would realize what he's doing. Pending changes protection (See Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2) may be the only way to deal with an IP hopper like him. I see he was back this morning with yet another IP, but others have reverted him, yourself included.
 * BTW, I've come across your good work on the pages of several film editors -- Kudos to you as well! - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll look at the proposed change. This vandal is certainly wasting editor time that could be better spent. Easchiff (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that another option is WP:RFPP. If you don't get any satisfaction there sometimes reverting again and again, even if it goes on for weeks, is the only option. If you stay on it they can get tired of their messing around and they will go away - with luck. Now I know that I am chiming in without knowing all of the facts of what is going on so if these suggestions aren't helpful please forgive me for intruding. Best of luck to both of you in dealing with this pest. MarnetteD | Talk 15:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't do a WP:RFPP because this guy tends to strike infrequently, and I've noticed PPs tend to last only a day or two, especially when they're being used against only one user. He'd return after they expired.
 * I've obviously seen your posts on multiple film pages, and we've had exchanges there. So it's not at all offputting to see you here. No worries about Talk page stalking... In fact that gave me a laugh...
 * I didn't notice any other WP:FILM people on Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 when I checked it out a couple days ago. It does seem like a better option than temporary PP, but it all depends on how it's implemented. There could be some real problems with it, e.g. edit conflicts, but the consensus seems to be building for it with Option 2. I voted for it as well (after initially leaning against), largely because of our IP hopper -- but I reserve the right to change my mind if it doesn't work like it should... I'd be curious as to your thoughts on it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. "Pending changes" never really worked for me - that is as likely due to my being a techno-dinosaur and not understanding all that computers/wikiprogaming can do as to any problems with the way the changes worked. It just didn't save me any time. You are right about PPs usually only lasting a few days. If you get an admin who is understanding they might protect for longer periods of time with repeat vandalism (for instance their are some pages that were vandalized so often by BambiFan101 that they have been under PP status for years) but that is hit or miss. I know how frustrating these long term vandals can be, especially when you want to be doing other editing. We've got one person that loves adding MTV awards for film villains to various articles in spite of the fact that they (actor and/or villain) weren't even nominated. That is one of the ones that I just keep reverting and they seem to have gone away for the last couple weeks. Again best wishes in dealing with this situation and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hitchcock cameo in Topaz
There is no source for the previous time of 33 minutes. Also, what kind of source do you want? I just watched the film, and the cameo appeared at :27. Jem54 (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Two sources are in External links at the bottom of the page. Empire gives 00:32:27, Filmsite gives 33 minutes. Your own observations unfortunately come under WP:OR, and they're contradicted by what's been accepted and backed-up on the page a long time. You probably saw an edited version of the film. It would be best to respond on the article's Talk page: Talk:List of Hitchcock cameo appearances - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Prequel dispute
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Prequel". Thank you. Barsoomian (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. As long as you're online I thought we might have an opportunity to try to get further. (1) I didn't know there were any sources indicating Rise was in a different continuity from the first two movies, I thought the inconsistency with the series started with Escape. (2) But in general are you interested in talking out why this series is different from most any other? Is it the continuity argument only? If so and you have sources for noncontinuity, that advances the discussion. JJB 01:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (3) I also thought the relevant text ("have been primarily described as [sequels] in a vast majority of sources, but have also been regarded as prequels in the broad sense by reliable sources") was an accurate statement of your views about POTA. Comment? JJB 01:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That was unnecessarily verbose. And readers don't know what "reliable sources" means. It was best the way it was. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is not in continuity with first 1968 film, it makes winking allusions to it. If you haven't read the previous discussion on the Apes sequels and Rise being a reboot, you can do so at WT:FILM Escape from the Planet of the Apes - does going back in time make a sequel a prequel? Note a couple quotes:
 * Hold on, I thought we were talking about Escape. You're talking about Rise? Rise is a reboot. Have you seen the original films? They tell the whole story of the ape revolt: In Escape Cornelius & Zera travel back in time to the '70s & give birth to Caesar, the first ape who can talk; In Conquest, Caesar leads the apes in a revolt against humanity; In Battle, the apes & humans coexist in a world ravaged by nuclear war, until some radiation-scarred humans attack & Caesar established apes as dominant. Rise contradicts these 3 original films by portraying an entirely different origin story for Caesar, a different story of the ape revolt, and a different means by which humanity is mostly wiped out (a virus as opposed to nuclear war). Rise is, in every sense, a reboot of the franchise. It would be as if I made a Star Wars film depicting a completely different origin for Darth Vader than those portrayed in Episodes I, II, & III. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure Rise is a reboot of the franchise. That's not the question. Rise is also prequel to PotA (1968). Same as your hypothetical SW movie could be a prequel to "New Hope" while contradicting SW I, II, III. "Prequel" is relation between two works, not a statement of how a work fits into a "franchise". A single film or book can have many "prequels", completely contradictory. Why not? See the RfC for more details, I don't want to just repeat this over and over. Barsoomian (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's quite wrong. Rise of the Planet of the Apes isn't a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes, since it contradicts it where details of events before the rise of the apes are concerned. In the original Planet of the Apes, the Icarus is sent out into space in the early 1970s. In Rise, on the other hand, it gets sent out during the events of that film, and it clearly isn't set in the early 1970s. You can't reconcile them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to spend all my time on WP giving the same points on this, on what would now be a fifth page. So I'll paste in my earlier summary of the dispute:
 * As I explained in the extended conversations at Talk:Prequel/Archive 1 and the following Talk:Prequel/Archive 1 and Talk:Prequel/Archive 2, I agreed to describing Rise of the Planet of the Apes in the article as a reboot film that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. But I don't believe that's accurate for the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. I have read a great deal about them over the years, including looking back at contemporaneous articles. They were always called sequels, all four of them. Each film has characters moving forward in their own timeline from the previous film, and they discuss what happened in that preceding film. The narrative as well as the characters of those films continue forward in their own story in each one, even as they go back in time. For the three primary Apes characters, the events of the third film occur after the original narrative. Not before.
 * To again quote Betty Logan: In the case of the 70s sequels, there really isn't that much out there calling them prequels, just the odd source here and there, and for the most part they are usually regarded as sequels, so the question is whether there is enough opinion out there to warrant the claim that there is a significant view they are prequels? I generally think there isn't if I have to call it.
 * Again, consensus both here and at WT:FILM is firmly against listing any of the original Planet of the Apes series sequels as prequels. They were against including Rise as well, but I compromised and went along with listing it in gray shading because it's a reboot that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. You may be able to find a small number of sources that have called some of the original sequel films prequels, but not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel. Usually when consensus is reached, it's done and we move on. It seems to me this dispute should be over. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt pressured to repeat yourself. I thought POTA didn't name the craft and thus that the winking reference to an Icarus in Rise was maybe-so maybe-not the same craft in-universe. Perhaps something else about the reference to Icarus did intend to be directly contradictory, which you can fill me in about. But on the main point, you seem to be saying the 3 films truly "have been primarily described as [sequels] in a vast majority of sources, but have also been regarded as prequels in the broad sense by reliable sources", which is why I put that in. To move the conversation forward one way or another, since you are not contradicting my reading of your view but only repeating statements that don't answer it directly, it would appear I could conclude my reading is accurate. Or are you saying all the sources advanced here are unreliable? I would hope you're not going there, because that might be an easy one for the RSN (another board!) to bat out of the park on the side of reliability. But I am likely to be signing off for the next few hours. Looking forward to full resolution. JJB 02:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks, Maryana...! - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Executive producer
There's no "OR" involved in it. The Executive Producer outranks the Producer, and if both are credited on a film, the Exec comes first. Don't revert again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your claim because it's a *hierarchy*, and the exec prod is more likely to be responsible for basic decisions about the film, whereas the producer is more likely to be dealing with day-to-day issues is just an assumption you have. It's not universally true at all.  Philip D'Antoni was the principal producer on Bullitt and all the films he made, winning the Best Picture Oscar for The French Connection. One would think the fact that the credited exec producer Robert E. Relyea is never mentioned in the article might indicate something to you. An edit based on who you think "is more likely to be responsible" isn't even original research, it's just your assumption.
 * And prepare to be reverted at Template:Infobox film/doc, where a number of people are against listing exec producers at all. I don't agree with that, as you can see at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 21. They're not likely to take kindly to your rolling in and re-writng their policy at your whim. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, you appear to be correct, at least according to the AMPAS, where only "Producers" are credited for Best Picture nominated films. I'm off to revert my change to the template, and to remove the Exec Prod from Bullitt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes/Prometheus short film
Dear Gothicfilm:

Before I would change anything in Prometheus (Zoltan Deme film) article, please let me ask your views about the proposed changes, because you seem an excellent, data-to-data precise editor and know Wikipedia much better than me. The basis of my proposed changes:

(A) This movie is done, completed and finished, and this fact I am able to support with sources. (B) This movie rather is a science fiction horror movie - however, with no sources I am able to support the "horror" nature (I am certainly not an "encyclopedia" knowing everything that has been published until this time). My question is: the fairly supported fourth paragraph of the article that shows that the Inquisition is present in the film by torturing and freezing someone to death, is acceptable as supporting factor or maybe not?

As I would resolve these problems: (A) In subsection Filming locations and circumstances, the proposed sentence is: High tech animation was added in 2011, and the movie was finished in 2012. [Placing source here]. Instead of the recent first sentence of the entire article, the proposed sentence is: Prometheus is a science fiction short film written and directed by Zoltan Deme. (B) If you approve the term "horror" based on the above details, the first sentence of the entire article would be exactly this: Prometheus is a science fiction horror short film written and directed by Zoltan Deme.

Please note me what to do, what is the right way to resolve these problems. Hoping to have your help,

Yours, Achstein2222y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achstein2222y (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A scene or two of the Inquisition as described does not put Prometheus (Zoltan Deme film) in the horror film genre. If you label it that people would expect horror elements to be the emphasis of the film. You can change "unfinished" to "unreleased" - it is important to put a film's current release status in the lead - people should not be led to believe this film is available now. The bit on his short film Prometheus at the Zoltan Demme Home Page is rather lacking in detail.
 * How is this a science fiction film? Sounds like it's a take on the Aeschylus play Prometheus Bound, but then your text says it's about  the secrets of a 12th century master painter noted as N.W., and Prometheus Crystallus, the nineteen years old young phenomenon in mathematics and astrology who was sentenced to freeze to death by the Inquisition. Another problem is a lot of the article is unclear whether it's relating the film's narrative or background material. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Gothicfilm:


 * You are right. Thanks for your help. Though more than two horror scenes are in the movie, these scenes still do not put Prometheus (Zoltan Deme film) in the horror film genre, exactly as you said. We rather have not to mislead people by inaccurate or superficial information. Further, to clear up the genre I place page number to that source that shows this is science fiction movie, a journey to an "other world" (actually, this source is the script of the movie in a printed ISBN book). Besides, I also add page number to the source that describes the circumstances of shooting the movie at Lake Balaton, Hungary, Europe. By ISBN anyone can find it, take it hand, read it, and see the relation. Let see the other confusing items. I will also add a source that shows that the movie was finished this winter and indicates that the film is an unreleased and upcoming movie, thus, I will change the word "unfinished" to "unreleased" as you instructed.


 * As per the other confusing items I will make an addition indicating that few elements of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound are rather present in the movie and also place appropriate reference. Not to confuse the readers of the article and keep them in clear track, I will separate the ancient and the modern sources of the movie using two subsections instead of the recent one.


 * I hope that the article will be much better, however, please tell me if you are against any of these changes. Thanks for all your help!


 * Yours, Achstein2222y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achstein2222y (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Birds
Thanks for explaining your reasons for removal. Edit summaries are a great thing. As Hunter mentions this in both Me and Hitch and the DVD documentary, this idea will reinserted into the article, with your suggested clarifications. Upon its reinsertion, you are, or course, welcome to help smooth the prose (whilst avoiding OR). The JPS talk to me  11:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good. The appearance of bias, whether intended or not, needs to be avoided as well. Hunter's book should have useful accounts of their creative process. If at some point you want to start a discussion on the film's Talk page, I'll be glad to respond. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg's first feature film
Duel is also credited as his first feature film. Granted it premiered on television first before being released theatrically. He has two feature film debuts listed in the category at the moment. QuasyBoy (talk)  14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a little ambiguous, but calling Duel Spielberg's feature film directing debut is clearly misleading. It was made and initially released as an ABC-TV movie. Later the powers-that-be gave it a theatrical release in Europe. But that was not the original intent. The WP article even uses the Television film infobox template.


 * Spielberg's 1971 The Name of the Game NBC-TV series episode L.A. 2017 was 76 minutes long, so we cannot say Duel was his feature-length directing debut either.


 * The Sugarland Express was considered to be his feature debut at the time of its release. It was his first unqualified feature film. I've taken this to the Duel Talk page and edited accordingly. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Name of the Game episode wouldn't even count in this case, because its exactly that, a television episode, not a film. Also, I'm not objecting to you not listing Duel as Spielberg's directorial debut film, I just wanted the discrepancy to resolved, that is all. QuasyBoy (talk)  02:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be resolved, and I took it to the Duel page. So until someone disputes it, it's resolved. And L.A. 2017 is as "feature length" as Duel - at least its first released version. That was the only point. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (novel)
Hello, Gothicfilm. Please keep an eye on Planet of the Apes (novel); the IPs aren't giving up. I have requested semi-protection of the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be there. Thanks for your efforts in protecting the Apes pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Incidentally, I'm not sure whether there is one person at work at Planet of the Apes (novel) and Battle for the Planet of the Apes editing from a dynamic IP address or from several different static IP addresses (maybe different computers), or whether there are two or more different people with different IP addresses. This is relevant for 3RR considerations, among other things. Any thoughts? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have requested semi-protection of both articles. After my 3RR warning it appears the first IP brought in a friend who has now used at least eight different IP addresses from the same area at Planet of the Apes (novel) and Battle for the Planet of the Apes. This kind of disruption needs to be stopped, but blocking the IPs won't work -- the pages need protection. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like both of the IPs are back. The article may need to be protected again; it would probably be better for someone other than me to request it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. We now have a month's semi-protection at Battle for the Planet of the Apes. This was necessary just hours after the previous two-week semi-protection expired. The IP hoppers were both using new anon addresses - the 2nd his ninth and tenth. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD project
Hi Gothic, I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer given that you seem to come up against more than your fair share of POV pushers. The essence of it is a peer review system in relation to challenged unilateral edits. If you are not interested then no worries, I'm just seeing if there is any interest/suggestions at this stage before going to the bother of formalizing a proprosal. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've drafted out the proposal at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. Hopefully I've addressed any concerns people had, and this is the version that will go before the Wikiproject proposal committee. It's been streamlined a bit to focus on operation and the name has been changed, but other than that it's doing the same job. Anyway, this is a message I'm dropping on everyone's page so they can check it out and make sure they are ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The formal proposal is up and running at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state. If you are still interested in supporting it you will need to add your name at the official proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Argo (2012 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather
I invite you to take part in this discussion of an improvement to the plot I am trying to put forward. Thanks --JTBX (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bzuk! And the same to you! - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Girl
Oops, thanks for fixing this. Not quite sure why I added Anthony Perkins instead of the correct actor. Good job you spotted that one. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. Mistakes happen... - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Classic Movie Hub links
Your several reversions of Classic Movie Hub links brings me to invite your comment at the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock infobox photo
If you'd like to resize the studio image - even though we're not even sure it's legal to use on WP - fine. But for you to attempt to delete entirely a photo that was expressly donated to WP per the OTRS ticket, makes no sense. Why would you even want to? Resizing the studio image is reasonable. Removing a specifically donated image is not. Kindly edit collaboratively. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:44AF:D6AC:77D1:E320 (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You have broken WP:3RR by putting in the same edit three times in less than an hour, despite being reverted by two editors. The previous image is better for the infobox. You can place yours lower. This discussion belongs on the article's Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest you review WP:3RR. I did not revert more than 3 times. And whether the previous image is "better" is your opinion. What is not opinion however, is that the image may not even be legal for use. Suggest you review the permission. Hitchcock is not a "film actor", nor do we have a date/year of the image, so it may not be in the public domain. While, we do know the image I restored has an OTRS ticket, so there is no question as to whether we can use it. If you'd like to continue this discussion on the article's talk page, that's fine. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:44AF:D6AC:77D1:E320 (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You've now been reverted by three different editors and given a WP:Edit warring warning. Cont'd at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion
Have requested a third opinion on this matter so hopefully someone can clarify the situation. The discussion is at Talk:The Girl (2012 HBO film). Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Line producer
Hello, thanxalot for looking into the updated version of Film director. Please also check the article Line producer. I rewrote that one too. Dankeschön. NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 22:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. You have looked into this article too. I appreciate that. Even so, I have some mixed emotions in regards to the details you have added. I rewrote this article in the first place because I find tags ugly. Everything I wrote holds water in the sense that it is totally backed up by the new references. You added some information which could very well inspire somebody to be suspicious about "original research" or something. (There is a tag for that too.) However, I also just rewrote Executive producer. Feel invited to have a look at it, please. Merci beaucoup NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sacred Scrolls link.
Thanks for spearheading this effort. I can't believe that two people who never contributed to a page think they had the right to delete a long standing link. However, Nikkimaria also deleted the link from this page too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planet_of_the_Apes_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=541442076 Can it be restored now or does the same process have to happen again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfThornhill (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dealing with the rules of WP can be frustrating, especially when people who don't care about the article's subject arrive on a page just to remove things they have a pet peeve against, like certain types of external links. I'm not happy about the amount of time it took, but in the long run patience won out and WP:Consensus agreed the link was useful. In the case you point to above, La Planète des Singes was being used as a reference, not an EL. However, I agree it is useful for that page as well. Now that it's been cleared for Planet of the Apes (novel), I believe it's justified at Planet of the Apes (franchise) for the same reasons, and will add it as an EL. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, they are at it again and have deleted the links from both pages claiming that no WP:Consensus was reached. My guess is their definition of WP:Consensus is that they have to agree to it. Let me know what next steps are and what I can do to help. SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Stop adding Abridged Scripts for Movies
This is in response to the rude comment that you left on my Talk page.

Yes, Abridged Scripts are satirical, but that does not mean that they are not useful resources for readers of Wikipedia, since they summarize the plots of movies. Also, satire is a form of criticism, so an Abridged Script functions as a kind of review of a film as well.

Can you point me to anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that says that because Wikipedia is "encyclopedic", everything it links to must be encyclopedic? I don't think so, because that doesn't make any sense (very few books are encyclopedic; neither are newspaper articles). Is there anything in the guidelines that says satire must not be linked to?

That Abridged Scripts should not be linked to in articles about films is your own personal point of view. Unless you can explain how an article about a film is harmed by adding a link to the corresponding Abridged Script, I ask that you stop undoing my edits. If you want to remove links to abridged scripts, you should obtain consensus.

If Abridged Scripts should not be linked to, then the Editing Room template is inappropriate. If you believe that to be the case, you should go to Templates for discussion and nominate this template for deletion. Until you get consensus to do so, you should stop undoing my edits. – Herzen (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thing: why did you remove my link to Metacritic, which used the appropriate template, and add a link to it that does not use the template, in this edit? – Herzen (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because it was all one edit, obviously, and you had hit many pages. Satirical websites like The Editing Room are not to be added as external links. See WP:ELNO. Simply pointing this out is not rude. You can respond on your own page, by the way. And I expect your new template will be deleted in short order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I started a thread - you can join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Satirical website The Editing Room - Abridged Scripts for Movies. So far no one there is for adding your link, but they are for deleting your template. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For your enjoyment
Hello G. Thanks for your vigilance regarding the EL mentioned above. If, at some date in the far future, it ever did meet WikiP's guidelines for EL's then I think we would have to add this one to various film articles as well :-) I hope that some of them bring a smile to your day. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's about the size of it. All they need is to actually put those concepts in screenplay format. Thanks. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Lets see would a 30 second film have a one or two page script :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Tippi Hedren
Hi Ghoticfilm. May I ask you what was wrong with my introduction ? Of course, it wasn't finished yet. I would be happy if you tell me how to do it. Thank you. Fay169 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was largely better as it was. And you were putting a controversial claim in the lead as if it were a fact. That claim is covered in the article. Putting it in the lead gives it WP:UNDUE weight. Gothicfilm (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

// 2013 // Playwright
My edit was intended to improve the etymology section of the term Playwright which not only felt like too much prose and bloated, but it was also unclear which view was actually held until the late 19th century (and by whom, why, etc...).

So, with all do respect, do not just undo edits but improve on them. weekeepeer (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It was not bloated, and it was better as it was before. Your version did not add to its clarity. This discussion should be on the article's Talk page, not here, as it's now on my Watchlist. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorcerer
Dave Salven was a producer for this movie but got fired, I know he didn't have the credit after all. If you have anything else to contribute, some pieces of info conflicting with what is already in the article, please do tell me here or on Sorcerer's talk page or on mine (it doesn't exist yet, I couldn't be bothered, I returned here after like 5 years with a diff. account), because I know that certain matters related to the production and whatnot are presented in a conflicting way in different media outlets and I'm perfectly aware of that.

Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you've changed what happened with Salven. It makes sense he wasn't fired, as he was line producer on a few films for Friedkin afterwards. But as I said on the Talk page, it looks like you have done a good job building up the Sorcerer article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sofia Coppola
Thanks for the edit, i didn't know how to go back to previous version

--Gargoyle Firebrand (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TV Apes
Hi. I made 2 edits to the page for the Planet of the Apes TV series. THE LIBERATOR did air, on 12-6-74. It wasn't "unaired". Not only did I watch this as it aired (and noted it in my diary) but it is also listed as having aired in 2 books: the first-ever book about APES, PLANET OF THE APES AS AMERICAN MYTH by Eric Greene; and Joe Russo's PLANET OF THE APES REVISITED, which has an introduction by Charlton Heston. Greene, BTW, is interviewed in BEHIND THE POTA, as well as in the Blu-ray documentaries (as is Russo), so this is about as official as anything can be. Both books list UP ABOVE THE WORLD SO HIGH as 12-20-74. I have never seen any book that lists a different date for UP. Only the DVD box lists LIBERATOR as unaired (most likely to help sales). No book does. I know several internet sites list different dates (LIBERATOR is listed as 12-13-74 at IMDB, which isn't true -- my diary lists the 12-13-74 segment as a rerun of ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW, the only segment to be shown twice on CBS), but these are not books. Anyway, the truth is this, take it from the sources I mentioned as well as my being there: LIBERATOR was 12-6-74; a rerun of ESCAPE was 12-13-74; UP was 12-20-74. And that was it; CBS didn't rerun the series. I would like to put this information on the APES TV SERIES page, but only if you OK it. Let me know. Thank you. Abbythecat (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Abbythecat.


 * The problem is you didn't explain any of this when you made the edits. You may be right - I certainly have no diary from when the show aired (not that it could be used as a reliable source on WP). I reverted because you deleted the long-standing previous data without explanation. You should replicate this info on the Planet of the Apes (TV series) Talk page so others can assess it as well, giving your sources - including for the runtime. Let a few days go by, then we'll decide how to use it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply
I don't have time to argue right now since I'm not done with my course yet, but I think you should read the science fiction article which also discusses speculative fiction and read the speculative fiction article which already listed science fiction can appear within the scope speculative fiction. As you pointed out WP:NOR is not acceptable here and your comment on my talk page is an example of your own original research. It cannot be simply science fiction without speculation based on your own personal conclusion. If you can provide satisfactory sources in the meantime to support your statements, then your arguments can be accepted. Please see WP:RS for more on that.-Taeyebaar (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, science fiction and is not necessarily speculative fiction. As you can see both genres are separateand have they're own separate articles on Wikipedia, but both do make the important mention of them coming together. See cross genres for more on that. Once you've read the articles and I'm finished with my summer course, I hope you can come up with sources to support your claims and we can have a decent and respectful discussion on it. Also be sure of maintaining a polite and respectful conduct when engaging with fellow editors or anyone else you interact with on Wikipedia. Please see WP:guidelines for more on that. Thank you Taeyebaar (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the guidelines. If anything it's you who broke them - you should not go around changing the genre to over a dozen articles, most without discussion. Those articles were clearly classified as science fiction for years until you suddenly altered them. And you should keep this discussion where it started, on your own Talk page, where others who also might respond to your edits can see it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

APES comment
Hi - just would like you to check my comments on the 'talk' section of the Planet of the Apes (TV series) page under '2 air dates'. I know it won't change anything, but it's important to me that people know what I wrote is true. best. Abbythecat

Film director page move
You indicated in your move of Andrew Davis (film director) → Andrew Davis (director) that it was per discussions at WT:FILM. I could not find such a recent discussion. When were these discussions? Do you have links? Also isn't that a rather narrow audience, when "director" has so many meanings? --Bejnar (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually I moved it from filmmaker to director. As I said at Talk:Andrew Davis (director), there have been discussions at WT:FILM which concluded that the term filmmaker should be avoided in article titles. In the case here Davis usually is credited solely as director anyway. The purpose of disambiguation in a WP page title is to differentiate, not give a complete or specific description of the role a person does. That should be done in the article. This is not always the perfect solution to DAB issues, but it seems to be what consensus has arrived at. This has been brought up more than once on WP Talk pages. For example I recall the reaction when Walter Hill (director) was moved to Walter Hill (filmmaker), then eventually back again. Discussions at WT:FILM are archived after 14 days, but this can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 41 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 8. More recently John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner) was moved to John Waters (director born 1893), as discussed at length at Talk:John Waters (director born 1893) - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Gothicfilm is correct and has been thorough in providing links to past discussions. Here is a recent one Talk:Steve McQueen (director). I am adding it to show that the consensus has continued and so that all of these are in one place if I ever need to come and copy them to paste in another discussion. Thanks again for being so thorough G. MarnetteD | Talk 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I had to go back more than a year for the Walter Hill discussion, but I thought it could be useful to put it on the record here. Thanks for the additional link. I agree it's good to have them in one place. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Revived interest in the film Infernal Affairs
Invitation to participate in the poll for Infernal Affairs.

From your edits for the film Infernal Affairs there is presently a poll taking place on The Departed film Talk page regarding whether you believe a separate subsection should be included for (a) Infernal Affairs as a source for the plot of The Departed film, and/or (b) a second subsection for the recently captured crime figure Whitey Bulger as the source for the character played by Jack Nicholson in the film.

The recent capture of Bulger has revived the question from two years ago of Infernal Affairs from when it did have a separate subsection on The Departed film page which was deleted by User:RepublicanJ, now known as User:OldJ. Invite to visit The Departed Talk page, to the Bulger section at the end of the Page, to participate in the Poll currently taking place. 208.120.96.227 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Psycho remake
Doesn't this reliable source say that Moodupani is the Indian remake of Psycho? It does not say whether it is an official remake or a loose one, but we can still use the source can't we? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The term remake means it's officially based on the same property as a previous work. One book author wrongly using the term does not overcome the word's actual meaning. That film is not a remake, no one involved with it bought any rights. As the film's article says, it is "inspired from" Psycho, as have been many other films much better known. It is not particularly notable and does not belong in the Sequels and remakes section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So u r basically saying I can't even write that the film is loosely based on Psycho? If yes, fine then. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Steadicam, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thons at UC Riverside
The UCR Libraries are hosting three edit-a-thons focusing on their great special collections (science fiction, water resources, the Inland Empire and more) on Oct. 12, 2013, Oct. 26, 2013, and Nov. 23, 2013. Please participate if you can! Details and signup here. All are welcome, new and experienced editors alike! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Belle authorship issue
Many if not almost all films have minor revisions by more that writer. After the credits are awarded noone else can claim any authorship other that the writer(s) awarded the credit. eg In the Pretty Woman section in wikipedia it does not name the other writer who tweaked the script while discussing the development of the script. This section is part of the campaign by supporters of Amma Asnate with the sole agenda of delegitmising the sole credit awarded Misan Sagay. It awards her the writing credit she did not earn. None of the responsible industry press have touched this "issue" because it isn't one. Asante has managed to get the gossip columnist to air this.The article is selectively quoted - why do you not quote Asnate's statements? Or Misan Sagay's that there was an attempt to rob her of the credit. The article should be about how the WGA arbitration process unmasked Amma Asante as a plagiarist who misrepresented to the Actors and the world that she was the sole author of a screenplay that was in fact written by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.139.253 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the WGA screenwriting credit system. As you have seen, my first concern is that the film's credits are properly reflected in the WP article. But I will leave further discussion to the Talk:Belle (2013 film) page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (franchise) edit issues
Hello. I didn't want to make it seem like I'm engaging in an edit war over this and I hope we can resolve the POTA issues... But please ackowledge that the 2001 film is both a remake and a reboot whereas for example the 2011 film is simply a reboot. A film can be both and that is a common case. A reboot is a film in a franchise that disregards previous films' continuity, and the 2001 film is both the first contiunity reboot of the franchise and a loose remake of the original film. You can check out the article for reboots in fiction in case you don't fully understand the concept of one! :) Therefore I'd like to re-add that back into the articles if that is fine with you. Also, all films that are installments of franchises feature their installment number in their lead sections, despite being reboots. And that's a pretty common thing, but if you really feel like it's confusing we can drop that I guess. Anyways, am I permitted to go back and re-add the reboot attributes to the films or is it still an issue? Please do keep in mind that I'm not saying the 2001 film isn't a remake by any means, it is simply also a reboot which I feel is important to address. --WickedWays (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said, most RS consider the 2001 film a remake. It did not start a new series, so there's no point in confusing it with the 2011 film that did. The POTA articles have stood many months labelled as they are, with the 2001 film a remake and the 2011 film a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The 2009 Friday the 13th film did not start a new series either, but it is still a reboot and that was noted in its lead section. Neither did the 2010 Nightmare on Elm Street, just to name a couple that come to mind. The 2001 film is a remake of a film and a reboot of a franchise, while the 2011 one is a reboot altogether, and I don't see anything confusing about that really. A reboot means to drop continuity, not to start a new film series. It can be a single film with no follow-ups, that really doesn't matter. And I think this should be pointed out, since it is on all articles for other franchise reboots, to maintain the consistency.--WickedWays (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A remake is just as much out of the original's continuity as a reboot. A reboot's main definition is it starts a new series. That's how the term came into common usage in film. As the reboot article says - With reboots, filmmakers revamp and reinvigorate a film series. The POTA articles would not benefit by having your definition added. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. A reboot does not have to start a new series to be a reboot, and that isn't really it's definition at all. Film series can be reinvigorated with a single film (which that really means is boosting a franchise's box office revenue among other things). The 2001 film was a failed attempt at reinvigorating the POTA franchise, but that doesn't make it any less of an attempt. And according to encyclopedic definitions, any film in a franchise that disregards continuity is a reboot, so technically if a remake is a part of a franchise it's automatically a reboot. Maybe therefore this shouldn't be pointed out since in a way it is a given, but there are many other films that are both remakes of films and reboots of franchises that have both of those things mentioned on their pages. Again, this is all so articles would be consistent to each other but if it's "confusing" then never mind... Cheers! --WickedWays (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Film director
The MOS WP:MOS says the title should not be repeated in subtitles. You reverted my corrections to this practice in the film director article. I also disagree with you calling the director/producer salary figure inappropriate. It is a great improvement over the current state, which has zero salary info.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Putting producer salaries in the average for directors on the film director page is clearly not appropriate. And there's a difference between film directors and TV directors, both on WP and with your source. And your source is quite wrong with the claim that directors have final say. Most do not have final cut or "final say". Many disputes have been documented with directors being overruled in casting and other creative aspects of filmmaking. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick
There are a few new editors to the article that may be making extensive changes. I've noted some potential problems on the talk page, but since you also worked on the article, your input might help. --Light show (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The Longest Day
So why are you removing Mickey Knox's name from the credits? If you want me to place the reference in the middle of the cast last I will.Foofbun (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As I indicated in my revert, WP does not list bit parts, especially when they are uncredited. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually didn't see your comments. I think an exception would be as he also acted as a dialogue director on the film and has enough credits to be regarded a major actor.Foofbun (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * He had no credit on the film. Not as actor or "dialogue director" - a position that wouldn't be added to a Cast list anyway. He should be listed on the pages of films where he had a major, credited part. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Genre of A Clockwork Orange (film)
Finally, a Wikipedian with a decent head on his shoulders. I've had notorious difficulty myself in the past trying to have the genre science fiction accepted into that article. I simply gave up after I realised I was talking to a brick wall. I hope you have better luck than me. I'm pretty much retired from Wikipedia now, only checking in very infrequently. But I'm glad to see this issue is not dead. However I think it is deplorable that it is still being "debated". To me this should have been resolved a long time ago.

You may be aware that at one point there was a section in the article on "Public perception of genre" discussing the various genres as they were interpreted by various sources. This was removed over a year ago (in April 2013), leaving any reference to genre in the article unfairly non-existent. I had actually proposed a modification and expansion to that section after it was removed, in the hopes that it would address the issues raised, but was met with little or no so support, and any mention of genre in this article has been excluded/suppressed ever since.

I disagree with User Binksternet's assertion that it should remain genreless, simply because the Wikipedians who happen to be discussing this are too indecisive, or think it will cause confusion in the readers (which does not say much for the readers, incidentally, since ultimately these are the ones, not "experts", who edit on Wikipedia).

Even though I maintain that (based on my numerous sci-fi film reference books), that the BASE genre of the film is science-fiction, because there is no other genre that a "futuristic" setting can be placed in, I've come to the conclusion that both reliable sources and public opinion are irrelevant, and that the only opinions that should be used to decide the genre are Kubrick and Burgess - who see it as a "dystopian social satire".

I haven't contributed to Wikipedia for some time, and my user/talk page redirect should be explicit enough as to my reasons. I've posted here just to compliment yourself on your raising this issue again, and to avoid the stress of pointless bickering with multiple Wikipedians, which is ultimately where these things end up.

Whatever happens, the best of luck to you, and I hope you don't get as discouraged with Wikipedia as I was.

Jodon |  Talk  21:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you taking time out from your effective retirement to post this. A brief comment at Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film) would help move the discussion along, but I see you haven't made any edits in months other than this one here. Best of luck to you too. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I'm glad to see you're making some headway on this issue. In appreciation of your efforts I've taken the liberty of posting my re-write on the removed section below (including referenced section). I had saved the draft of it into a Word document as a record for my own posterity (and apparent futility).


 * Please note the proposed re-write is in an unfinished state, as sources for "crime film" had yet to be included (perhaps you could add these yourself?), and more sources about "dystopia" need to be added, so that this section reflects the Wikipedia consensus of the genre in the lead's first sentence better.


 * The third paragraph in the proposed re-write below is basically a condensed version of the removed section, the rest is simply my modest effort to broaden the perception and sources a bit.


 * Although MarnetteD and I have had our differences in the past, please feel free to implement his suggestions regarding the re-write, if you wish.


 * In the final analysis, regardless of who does the edits, I believe it's important that this film gets the recognition it deserves. Obviously, disputes about its genre are part of that recognition. Ignoring those disputes does Kubrick, Burgess, and the film itself, a disservice.


 * I look forward to seeing you bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.


 * All the best.


 * Jodon |  Talk  12:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see you proceed with it, as you initiated it and know the sources best. It looks like you did some good work, and you might want to see it through. After much discussion we got consensus for dystopian crime film in the lead, which was the main element the article was missing. But I really don't have time to start a new sandbox-type project now. I'm copying it over to Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film) so everyone there will have easy access to it and can work on it as well. Good luck...! - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Public perception of genre (proposed re-write)
Despite the story being part of a "futuristic" setting, i.e. London in the near future (or London in an alternative reality), the precise genre of A Clockwork Orange has been the subject of much debate. Sources such as The American Film Institute class the film as science fiction, while others such as Turner Classic Movies class it as psychological drama (bearing in mind that "psychology" is a "science"), and the British Board of Film Censors calls it simply a "drama".

The film is included in numerous science fiction film reference books, such as Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Movies, A Pictorial History of Science Fiction Films, and Fantastic Cinema. While the film does have elements of soft science fiction, such as the futuristic/alternative version of 60s/70s Britain, or the "The Ludovico Technique", many critics have asserted that A Clockwork Orange is a dystopian satire, as well as horror.

Although A Clockwork Orange was not marketed as a horror film, nor reviewed as one upon release, one critic who counts the film as horror is Maitland McDonagh, senior movies editor of TV Guide from 1995 to 2008. Proponents of A Clockwork Orange as a horror film, however, overlook in the film the marked absence of the macabre and the supernatural as major themes in the horror genre. American Movie Classics' film critic Cory Abbey in an article on scary movies that are not horror lists A Clockwork Orange along with Jaws, Silence of the Lambs and others.

The idea that A Clockwork Orange could cover multiple genres is addressed by one critic:


 * "A Clockwork Orange falls into the category of dystopian science fiction, in which future society lives in a repressive and corrupt state. It also is a juvenalian social satire, focusing on the effects of an ignorant government. A Clockwork Orange is [therefore] categorized as soft science fiction, dealing with more psychological, social and political themes."

A further difficulty in a precise definition arises when speculative fiction is distinguished from science fiction, lending weight to the argument that it is not "true" science fiction. However, science fiction authors like H.G. Wells used science fiction literary devices to make didactic points about society. While science fiction has significant influence on world culture and thought, there remains little consensus of definition among scholars or devotees, meaning that a precise definition of genre for A Clockwork Orange will probably never reach true consensus.

Advice requested
Since you seem to have some experience dealing with the edit warring noticeboard, I'm wondering if it's possible to notice a pre-announced intention to edit war. The recent comment by an editor at Kubrick's talk page implies that kind of prospect: Well, you're wasting your time, any work done on this article while it is in my sandbox will eventually be overridden anyway. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * While you have my sympathy, ANI is more responsive to WP:3RR violations. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Release section
Got your message loud and clear (Take a look). But it looks like Toy Story 2 disagrees with your view. How about that ? And just because I pointed this one out,please don't go running off and edit it according to your 'standard' !! DtwipzB 19:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC) (talk)


 * It's the standard of Manual of Style/Film. Box office comes before home media. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha. Got it. DTwipzB 17:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (talk)

Infobox
You wrote; stop putting years of novels in film infoboxes. That unnecessarily expands the infobox, and it is already in the lead, where it belongs. And the screenplay cannot display below the novel (as you should have seen after trying it), so stop doing that too. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, but proceeding with that line of thinking, nothing should be in that box, since it is redundant since all that data is in the body of the page.Savolya (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, B! - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

 * Thanks, Marnette! Same to you! - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

GWTW cast credits
Hi Gothic, hope you had a nice xmas. I was wondering if I could have 5 minutes of your time and get some input from you regarding cast credits at the GWTW article (given that credits seem to be your forte). I started a discussion at Talk:Gone_with_the_Wind_(film). Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The list you put on the Talk page backs up the genres. Claiming there's no sources is invalid, to put it politely. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it says it requires a source. We are figuring it out on the page, I appear to be the only person looking for sources on the talk page, while you seem to be happy to revert me and note that I've been banned (ignoring my Good Articles, and a barnstar I received for preventing vandalism). Please help discussion, not discourage it and attack me as an editor. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You've been blocked three times, so you know how WP:3RR and WP:BRD work. You only went to the film's Talk page after your third revert. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even know why you are bringing it up. The reverts were because sources were being removed. Normally, discussion should happen before sourced material was removed. Technically, you were in error. Not me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You changed the genre more than once before going to the Talk page. That's edit warring. Even when you're adding your one favored source. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, because I went for a quick source, that a) made the lead easier to read, b) didn't state the obvious already (i.e: it's a biographical ___ _ _ _ ___ film. The film is based off a biography). I don't go to the edit page when I think a) i'm reverting vandalism, b) when I'm adding cited content. You seem to be ignoring other points I'm addressing on the talk page. I wish you would actually address them so we can go behind this attacking. Please assume WP:GOODFAITH friend. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have started a Dispute Resolution discussion for American Sniper
Please see here David A (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

87th Academy Awards
Thanks to my problematic browser support for Wikipedia (my Chrome for some reason won't login so I do non-mobile edits thru IE), I just discovered today that back in January you reverted an edit I had made to the 87th Academy Awards article changing the start time of the nomination announcement from 5:38 AM PST to 5:30. Here's why the correct time is 5:30 and *not* 5:38: This year there were actually *two* separate announcements back-to-back -- one by J.J. Abrams & Alfonso Cuarón at 5:30 covering 11 categories; the other by Chris Pine & AMPAS president Cheryl Boone Isaacs at 5:38 covering 13 categories (including Best Picture) -- I believe my edit description had it backwards, but still the point is they *started* at 5:30 instead of 5:38. Though the morning news shows generally carried only the 5:38 announcement (the traditional time window), *both* announcements were live-streamed starting at 5:30. It was easier to treat them as a single announcement at the first time (5:30) than rewrite the article to accommodate two announcements (something better done by more experienced editors in the off-season), and the 5:38 time is incorrect because it skipped the first announcement. --RBBrittain (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wars in the Stars
Hello, you reverted my edits at The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. That's fine but I have a suggestion. I thought the silent note was referring only to the actual name of the film, not the first part in the brackets. I suggest you (or anybody) change the silent note making it clear not to change anything in the brackets. Just a note, I didn't read much of that stuff on the talk page (took a glance though) so I didn't see any part about what I changed. If you reply, ping me. DangerousJXD (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

IMDb / Nighthawks
Hi Gothicfilm, I've noticed that you've twice added IMDb as a reference here and here. In your second addition you state, "IMDb is considered reliable for credits", but I'm respectfully challenging this. I cited WP:RS/IMDB in my removal of the content here. Since this link is on the main Wikiproject Film page, that very strongly suggests a definitive community attitude toward the site. I'm not sure where you're getting "IMDb is considered reliable for credits", because credits, like titles and other information, is user-contributed. Since in my experience your statement does not appeal to be the prevailing attitude in TV and film, I must respectfully ask you to substantiate this. In the interim, I'm restoring the link to a citation needed template slapping a Better template after the source while we resolve this. Please feel free to reply here, I'll watchlist the page. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * IMDb is not considered reliable for trivia. That is what WP:RS/IMDB is talking about. It should be amended to make that clear. Per several discussions, IMDb is considered reliable for credits, particularly below-the-line credits like stunt coordinators. Below-the-line credits are not going to be on a film's poster. It would be better to discuss this further on the film's Talk page or at the Film Project. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd sure like to review those discussions. Your position seems counter-intuitive considering the Resources page at WT:FILM doesn't include any mention of IMDB except in a section where they talk about dubious sources. For scope, the WikiProject TV FAQ explicitly considers IMDb unreliable. I don't expect to see that credit on the poster, but as I've said, since IMDb is user contributed, anybody can add that information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is often stated, but it is untrue. User submissions have to be approved before they are added to an IMDb page. That doesn't mean it's always accurate, but it's the single-best resource for below-the-line credits, and in my experience it has a very high percentage rate for credit accuracy. When I find a problem I submit corrections myself. The Trivia section being considered unreliable should not be used to disregard its usefulness for credits. As for the discussions, they have come up in several places over the last several years. I don't have them on hand. Again, this should be clarified at WT:FILM. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've opened a discussion at the Wikiproject. Would sure love to see evidence of the "verification" process. Approval =/= verification. We have an edit review system here at Wikipedia where the chief criteria is "is it obvious vandalism?" though there is no obligation to vet the content. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no equivalency between that and the IMDb approval process. Simply comparing a film's onscreen credits to its IMDb page shows its accuracy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me add that the AFI is the single-best resource for representing onscreen credits, but unfortunately it doesn't have a page for every film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with the AFI reference. As you probably know, we can also directly attribute the primary source, the movie, for the content, but that would require we actually see it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, though I did ping you, I'd like to directly invite you to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. I'm in a weird place because I'm basically quoting your position, when it would be better for you to articulate your own opinion. Currently the WikiProject doesn't seem to share the same perspective that you have, so if you could dig up some of those discussions you've referred to, that would be swell. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dictatorship
"take it to the Talk page"

It's NOT necessary because Welsh is NOT a nationality, nationality is the political link with an independent and sovereign country (UK), ethnicity is a different thing.

You are a true tyrant.

Farewall, despot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azertopius (talk • contribs) 08:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird
There is a discussion about cast list orders at Talk:To_Kill_a_Mockingbird_(film). Since this seems to be an area of interest to you I thought I would bring it to your attention. I think the discussion would benefit from your insight. Betty Logan (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Southpaw not a thriller
Aca-scuse me? Now what makes you so darn-tootin sure that the film is not a thriller. Not trying to "beat a dead horse" here but why remove it, some portions of the film especially from the trailer has suspense and intense moments from the film that make it more reminiscent as psychological thriller.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Come back with a significant number of reliable sources calling Southpaw a thriller. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are my sources where Southpaw is mentioned as a Thriller.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * http://insidepulse.com/2015/06/08/new-trailed-poster-revealed-for-southpaw-starring-jake-gyllenhaal-forest-whitaker-rachel-mcadams/
 * https://hiphopwired.com/2015/07/23/exclusive-50-cent-southpaw-boxing-eminem/
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3138463/Jake-Gyllenhaal-shows-muscles-new-stills-role-upcoming-Southpaw.html


 * WP uses reviews by critics as reliable sources. The majority of them do not call it a thriller. Announcements of upcoming films before their release and trailers are not what we go by. And we list the primary genre. There's often a number of possible subgenres, but we avoid listing them in the lead. In this case, the film is primarily a drama, and we've already got sports film in addition to that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * what, What, WHAT?!?!? What in the halibut would YOU consider saying that user's reviews are reliable. Their just users reviewing the movie. I say that movie websites ARE considered the true source when they say things are reliable mister. And if you flat out continue to fight and dismiss saying that user reviews are reliable then you are in a whole different ballpark here.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * More source that say Southpaw being a Thriller (Look again twice before jumping the gun mister)


 * http://www.aftermarketnews.com/royal-purple-to-appear-in-the-summer-sports-drama-thriller-southpaw/
 * http://www.metacritic.com/movie/southpaw-2015
 * http://www.hitfix.com/awards-campaign/review-jake-gyllenhaal-tries-to-avoid-a-melodramatic-uppercut-in-southpaw (The reviewer says thriller in his Southpaw review)


 * What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about user's reviews. I said reviews by critics. Rotten Tomatoes calls it a drama: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/southpaw_2015/ You gave Metacritic, and it lists Thriller fourth. Not a primary genre. And I don't appreciate your tone.- Gothicfilm (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Allright sorry for my tone, but all I'm saying is that it can't just be rotten tomatoes that you should rely on, in fact several sites in terms of movie reviews have different people both critics and reviewers themselves talk about them, if you look at the user's review on hitfix.com that I put down he or she mentions Southpaw as thriller at one point.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We go by the majority. The critical consensus. Rotten Tomatoes is a good source for that. We've spent enough time on this. Any further discussion should be done on the film's Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Star billing
I know this is a special interest of yours so I thought this discussion may be of interest to you: Template talk:Infobox film. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Credits
There are certain aspects of the pages for movies distributed by 20th Century Fox that are missed. Dune Entertainment is Fox's former production partner, but Dune Entertainment is not shown in the page for X-Men Origins: Wolverine or X-Men: First Class. Also, Bryan Singer was not involved with the 2013 Wolverine movie, yet his production company, Bad Hat Harry Productions, is included in the Wolverine production company credits. I'd like you to please leave my edits alone. Maleficent is one thing, I admit, but I still believe Dune Ent. should be included in Origins Wolverine and First Class. I have the right to edit what I think should be edited, being a member of the Wikipedia page. So treat me like a member, not like a crazy stranger. Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaGu13 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that's not how this works. You cannot change the credit listings of films because you want to overrule how the credits were done. If you misrepresent a film's credits, you will be reverted. Doing it repeatedly is WP:edit warring. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ladykillers
You may not realize that I did not remove any previous threads from talk:The Ladykillers. This was done by whoever entered the archiving. Replacing an archiving method which erases everything might be misconstrued as mischief. Please don't restore old achiving!

If you can figure out how to restore the old threads, without erasing mine, feel free! Student7 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said, I agree it archives too fast, but you cannot remove the link to the previous discussions. It doesn't matter how old they are, archived discussions should remain accessible. Find another solution, possibly restore the archived Talk page (which would restore your post as well, since it's now archived). If you can't fix it, leave it alone. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Battle for the planet of the apes
The film's title indicates it, I personally saw it and own it on DVD it clearly qualifies though I agree the other films don't. Also why do you accuse everybody who disagrees with you as edit warring? As if your a sweet innocent angel who's edits always valid. This film is already categorized as an action film both on and off wiki. Give me one good reason why it's not? If I'm not back tomorrow or the day after doesn't mean I'll be gone forever or watch you hijack articles and tell others not to edit them.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should be discussed on the talk page if necessary. Start a discussion but don't put anything misleading about my edits. It definitely qualifies as an action film. I'll even check the DVDs for any genre labels, but regardless I do have a strong source to start with.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your history as a genre warrior goes back years, as can be seen by the multiple warnings posted on your Talk page. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Repeating the same edit is WP:edit warring. Try following WP:BRD and getting WP:Consensus instead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on Agents of SHIELD (Season 2)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Truth
Hello! I apologize for my removal of the production designer on the Truth page, I had no idea, thank you for including on the wikiproject film on how they are important into the article. Hope you are having a good day/night! :) Vmars22 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


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

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


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Gothicfilm as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times and many wonderful films to watch. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Marnette. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bzuk. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ending scene in TWD with Negan's men
I have seen the episode "No Way Out" twice now. The opening scene from that episode is an abbreviated version of the so-called "preview clip", containing about half of that. For example, the following speech is nowhere in the mid-season premiere: "See... your weapons, your truck, the fuel in your truck, if you got mints in your glove compartment, if you got porn underneath the seat, change in the seats, hell the seats themselves, the floor mats, your maps, the stash of emergency napkins you got there in your console, none of those things are yours anymore." So if that supposed preview clip doesn't belong in Start to Finish, and only half of it belongs to No Way Out, then were does the rest of it belong? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't belong in WP. We don't give lines of dialogue on Plot pages. It would be best to keep this discussion in one place, on the episode's Talk page: Talk:Start to Finish. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bzuk! - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's start again
Hi Gothicfilm, I just want to apologize for reverting your edits on the tag. I was mistaken and they were not against any rules. I would really like to bury the hatchet and work towards making articles better without grudges or misunderstandings. I think the lead is better with your last edit and I would hope next time we discuss things it can be with more good faith, on my part especially. Hope you have a good day. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1980s chase films
If you feel that it was "| Unnecessary to break down this category to decades.", why not proprose a deletion/re-direction of the category instead of just removing it from one page? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Polygram
Hello, sorry if this should be in the talk page for Polygram. I am pretty new to this. I saw your comment on Batman. You are right, the chart does say films "directly" by. But by that logic, shouldn't all the movies listed as co-productions be removed? A co-production with Warner Bros. on Batman is no different than a co-production with Paramount on Clue or Flash Dance or with any other studio for many of the other films on the list. We could just alter the intro sentence to say films that Polygram has involvement with and remove "directly". What do you think? Foodles42 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be on the article's Talk page. But since you started it here - They are different. Just because someone listed all those titles on WP as co-productions does not mean they were the same. Batman does not list Polygram in its opening credits or on its poster. It has "Produced in association with Polygram" in the end credits. As the article says, by the time the film was made, it was not involved in the production. In other cases Polygram does have production credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will copy the above to the discussion page and reply to you there. Foodles42 (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

RKO films
Rather than edit war, might I suggest you read some material of the film industry of the 1920s and 1930s, particularly in relation to RKO. The RKO Story is a good beginning. Particularly during the years of LeBaron, the actual producers were called supervising producers. You can even look at the periodicals of the time such as Modern Screen, Picture-Play, Film Daily, Motion Picture Magazine, etc. Cheers.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I've given you sources so you can better understand the dynamics of the production systems in place in the film industry in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. Please take a look at them. I understand your point about A.Producers, etc. But you're equating what is today termed an associate producer, with the credit of associate producer in the 1920s an 1930s. The Associate Producer credit during that time frame, especially at RKO, was the producer credit. William LeBaron, for example, was the Studio head in charge of all production, or what we would today call the Executive producer. Associate producers, or supervising producers (both terms were virtually synonymous during that era), were what we would term the producers. You do some really fine work on more modern articles, don't know what else other than providing you with the sources.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing about that is universally true. The executive producer credit today rarely means what you claim above. Your research reflects some cases, not all of them. You need consensus to override Template:Infobox film: Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. Anyone can use a book to say someone was the "real" producer. The one who had actual "produced by" credit goes in the infobox. Not supervising producers or other ones you deem real through your WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. And thanks for responding. Why don't see if we can hash it out here and come to some understanding? First, I'm not saying it's universally true. Of course it isn't. But in these particular examples it is. I also understand your point about the exec producer in today's film industry, especially in light of the demise of the studio system. I guess what I was attempting to illustrate was that LeBaron (and the two that followed him) were more akin to that role. The goal of the encyclopedia is to get as accurate as possible, using non-primary sources. Earlier, you disagreed with the addition of assistant directors into infoboxes. You gained consensus for that position, and so I haven't argued with you about that since consensus was gained. But, if you are able, please pick up either of the two books I mention above, they'll really help you understand the production system at RKO during this time frame. I'll continue to look for online sources which might help, but they are pretty hard to come by due to the age of the subject material. Hope this helps.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 01:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am already very familiar with film history, whether recent or many decades ago. I already know how producer credits have evolved. What you are promoting is what is now called line producers, production managers or studio executives. Some sources like to say they are "real" producers. That is their opinion, and it is not universally held. The infobox guideline says to exclude them if they don't have "Produced by" credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Fairly plain at this point about the production companies
For Alien: Covenant it is becoming fairly plainly evident that Scott Free Productions is listed in the credits of the film as a British company participating in the Production, and further supported by both Variety magazine and Deadline magazine  as reliable sources. My plan is to bring this into the Lead section in the next day or two since it has been placed on the Talk page there, and in the Finance section of the Production details of the film. The Lead section should preferably now be read as referring to an Anglo-American film or British-American film at this time. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Fanny Foley Herself
Hi. I know you and I don't see eye to eye on some things, but I noticed the removal of the AFI template on this article earlier today. Personally, I've never had interaction with this editor, but in this case, the AFI link is in the references section, so I didn't see the need to revert. However, I see no issue with it being both in the references and EL sections.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 04:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Ain't it Cute?

Mrakd002.302 (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Year of source material in film infobox
I don't see in the infobox film template, any specific exclusion in setting a date for publication, that the film was based onSavolya (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I posted on your Talk page nearly three years ago, the year of source material unnecessarily expands the infobox, and it is already in the article lead, where it belongs. It is not the purpose of the Template:Infobox film guideline to list prohibitions. It gives what is to be included. WP:WikiProject Film is against additional clutter in the infobox. And in the case of A Bridge Too Far (film), it was based on a book, not a novel. Such a distinction should be maintained in an encyclopedia. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well done
A good clear report got you peace. Well done. Happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had put off making that report as I knew it would be time consuming, but at a certain point it had to be done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Peter Rabbit
Some people said that the film was not produced, but will be released by Sony Pictures Animation under its label as its logo was seen in the trailers.

Happy Holidays

 * Thanks, Marnette. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bzuk! - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Glory
"Accolades" is subjective and POV. "Awards" is objective, benign, factual, and not in the least bit POV. As far as what other articles contain, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The right thing for you to do is to revert "Accolades" back to "Awards...". Also, why did you revert the black and white photo back to the less clear and less sharp version? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your statements on "Accolades" are your opinion. You should bring this up at WP:WikiProject Film. The historic image looked fine in its original version. I also disagree that your altered image on the other page you're currently in a dispute with another editor over is an improvement. So two editors are reverting your photo alterations. You should discuss those issues on the articles' Talk pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI: I've been editing photos in Commons for quite a while, few of the photos I add are reverted, and if they are, when an RfC occurs, 9 times out of 10 the image I edit is the one that stays in the article. Not that my track record with images is relevant, it isn't.  Not sure why you think it is.  Regardless, the photo I retouched was clearer, sharper, and brightened, allowing the reader to get a better look at the photo subject.  "Accolades" is subjective and POV no matter how you slice it.  Not to mention it's not inclusive of all the content in the section - making the header inaccurate and misleading.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The original image of Robert Gould Shaw was fine as it was uncropped. It is better being able to see the classic historic sitting pose, which your cropping obscured. Judging by this and the other image, you have a tendency to make photos too bright. At least to my eye and the other editor. But I'm taking this to the article's Talk page where it belongs. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Apes
If you follow the link to Apes, you know that humans are apes. And then you know that "a society in which apes have evolved into creatures with human-like intelligence and speech" includes Earth in the present day. The whole globe consists of a society of apes with intelligence and speech. So the sentence needs a rework. I made a good faith edit. Make another edit if you don't like it, because edit warring starts with thoughtless reverts of good faith edits rather than actually making an effort. 2601:182:CC02:8E60:96:A3D6:C773:32F5 (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have done this multiple times using different IPs and been reverted by others, as it is quite unnecessary. Readers know what the common word "apes" means. Stop edit warring and take it to the article Talk page per WP:BRD, and get consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I always edit anon. Take the personal stake out so you don't get ego involved. I'm sure you've been in a few ego-based trenched battles, useless to the project really. You are wrong, check the edit history. I made an edit, it was reverted, I made a distinct second edit that was trying to take into consideration the comment of the revert. I propose that you constructively edit the next edit to address your specific concern rather than a lazy revert. There are multiple parts to the information, and if you object to "non-human apes", then make an edit that addresses that alone. 209.117.102.182 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I join the others who reverted you. The sentence is fine as it is now. Readers know what the common word "apes" means. Your WP:UNCIVIL tone doesn't help. I suggest you take it to the article Talk page per WP:BRD, and try to get consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean one other, who reverted different information. I think it's uncivil to accuse someone of edit warring after bold-revert-bold when the second edit was distinct, good faith, and tried to take the comments into account.  Rather than uncivil to call the revert after that "lazy", and not the person tacking such action, you, who I did not attack ad hominem.  I have over a decade of familiarity applying WP:BRD and from the policy this is what I did: "BRD doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people, all of whom are interested in making progress. There are many other options, and some may be more suitable for other situations.  Bold, revert, bold again: Don't stop editing, and don't discuss. Make a guess about why the reverter disagreed with you, and try a different edit to see whether that will be accepted. It's often helpful if your next effort is smaller, because that may help you figure out why the other editor objected to your change."  Specifially for lack of the "small number of people... interested in making progress"as opposed to opposing changes outright.12.130.117.28 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly said Readers know what the common word "apes" means. All your edits were acting as if there was a problem when, in the context of this article, no one else sees a problem there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic
It's the 7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic! Sunday, September 30, 11:00-4:00 PM Pan Pacific Park, 7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90036 Hang out. Consume crowd-sourced BBQ! Bask in the glory of late September in Los Angeles (and the glory of our new user group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles). RSVP (and volunteer) here. We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Join our Facebook group, or follow us on Twitter! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Merry Merry

 * Thanks, Marnette. An early Merry Christmas to you as well! - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference
Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

The Pathé situation
Hey Gothicfilm, I’ve just read your message on my talk page.

The reason why I’ve been adding Warner Bros. (2009-2011) or 20th Century Fox (2011-present) to their British post-2008 releases is because Pathé have not distributed a movie in-house in the United Kingdom since 2008.

Here are a couple of other sources. One is from WarnerMedia’s (well, it would have been TimeWarner at the time) own website, which clearly says 'Warner Bros. will distribute Pathé’s movies in the UK.

As for Fox, here are 2 of the sources.  Luigitehplumber (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * WP and most databases use the credits for each individual film, which are considered more reliable than articles on a company in general. Most secondary sources for the 2009 film and the film itself list Pathé as the distributor, so that is what we should go by. BTW, it's best to keep discussions on the Talk page where they began, so it's all in one place. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Some of Pathé’s post 2009 films (UK) stil list Warner Bros. or 20th Century Fox, But we’ll have to go with what reliable sources say. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation
<div style="; width: 550px; text-align: center; margin-right: 1em; border: 1px solid /777777;padding:0.5em 1.0em; background:#F5D020;background-image: radial-gradient(#74F2CE,#7CFFCB)"> Meetup-San Diego-September 2K19 Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject San Diego at 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.

Just a comment
I didn't put this here, nor would I ever: I was a bit shocked to see my reasoning on the SK talk page where I had intentionally NOT put it (I actually wanted to complete ignore it because it's better for my health, but didn't quite manage), but survived. The best analysis I read so far is User:RexxS/Infobox factors. Hundreds of articles wait for an infobox. Remember: "the happiness ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Good points to be made. Didn't want to use your research without attribution. I know just where you're coming from. Happiness back at ya! - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I come from the cabal of the outcast ;) - We have a page infobox. It's talk page was nominated for deletion as "victimizing editors", although not one editor was named, just some of these lost boxes. (SK was not among those.) - "I am happy if only the others are happy." (repeat until you believe it) - I'm happily creating articles where nobody interfers with my accessibility standard ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Definitely some good stuff at your projects. I respect your long work history here, and fully understand pulling back from the more contested pages. I feel that sometimes one has to take a stand, and leave a record for future RfCs. The behavior of editors is there for anyone to see. The more you look into it, both on recent pages and in the archives, the more illuminating it becomes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

 * Thanks, Marnette. Appreciate the time you put into these messages! Merry Christmas to you as well! - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

October harvest
treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Best to you! - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2469 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . One has to be impressed with your own long history of contributions to WP, and your efforts in reaching out to Wikipedians. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Always nice to hear from you! - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles!
--JSFarman (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Always a pleasure to hear from you! - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

June 8, 2024
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)