User talk:MarnetteD/archive22

Talk page archiving
Hi Marnette, I'm really sorry to bother you but I don't know many people here on WP and could do with a bit of help on talk page archiving. I moved my talk page to User talk:Zarcadia/Archive 01 as apparently User talk:Zarcadia/Archive 1 was already created. My talk page archive now points to 'Archive 01' so I don't know if my archiving is correct or not. Bit of a technical question that I can't really work out currently, does it look correct to you? Again, sorry to hassle you but I'm a bit of a newbie with archiving. Zarcadia (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your help with that, nice to know there are some good people on WP willing to help out. Thanks! Zarcadia (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello!
Just a quick note to say that I am back. My retirement was short-lived, and actually would have been even shorter were it not for some personal and family interruptions.

If I can ask a favor, would you mind keeping an eye on the Goodfellas article? An anonymous user, who does not use edit summaries, is having his way with it. I look forward to working with you again. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 01:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot inconsistency
. To my mind, the "Synopsis" is a summary, what you might get in the blurb on the back of the DVD; the "Plot" has much more detail including stuff you won't want to know before watching it. Plot often has spoilers: synopsis shouldn't have many, if at all. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again R. Thanks for acknowledging my edit summary. As I went through the classic series articles I kept finding the two terms used inconsistently. Some articles have only one or the other of the headers and some have both. When I started here 6+ years ago we had a synopsis in the lead and then the plot section below that. That disappeared somewhere along the line. I think my next mini project might be to go through and try and make them consistent. On another note sometime in the last two or three years someone seems to have started a restructuring of the format of the classic series articles but they ran out of steam somewhere around the end of the 2nd Dr's - or start of the 3rd's - era. On another another note I am a bit concerned about this "we've renewed the series for 14 episodes" "we aren't going to have any new episodes in '12 and we might not have any til the 50th anniversary in '13" I wonder if there is something going on internally at the Beeb that we don't know anything about. Yet one more item - it is a nice coincidence of the calendar that the 50th is on a Saturday! Wonder how they are gonna do that The Eleven Doctors episode :-) MarnetteD | Talk 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... if there is an "Eleven Doctors", I hope that it's better than the somewhat contrived stories for 10th and 20th. The story for the 25th was pretty darn good. Curiously, the 100th anniv. will be on a Friday - I think it's because there are one fewer leap years in the interval 2013-2063 than there are in the interval 1963-2013.
 * I'm staying away from most things from Rose onwards as they attract too many WP:OR edits which I can't check; even the ongoing debate here is annoying me. As for The Movie, my attempt to make that consistent with earlier stuff (with references, please note, as opposed to the previous unrefd text) was twice reverted . I left a which was ignored.
 * So, with my stack of books by Dicks/Haining/Cornell/Day/Topping/Howe/Stammers/Walker/etc. I can try to keep a lid on the "classic" stories. Which brings me to my main worry. Are the activities of re-adding the stuff that you're removing as unsourced trainspotting, etc.? -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I'll try to respond in order. I still like 3 Drs (though I am not complaining about your characterization of it) as it was the first time they attempted to bring the shows history together. 5 Drs has its problems - most due to what has come to be described on the DVD commentaries and "making of" segments as J-NT's showmanship over content proclivities - but I do remember how exciting it was to see it at the time AND to be seeing it before it was aired in the UK. Remembrance... was fun and I liked it better that the "official" 25th anniversary story Silver Nemesis which suffered from having too many plot beats that were just like Remembrance... You are right about leap years being the determining factor in day/date matchups. The quickest they can happen is 5 yrs and the longest is 11 - which we are currently in BTW. I too gave up on editing the new series articles. Ownership issues are always a problem with them. I stopped several years ago after trying to cut back on an absurd amount of repeat info in Partners in Crime (some of it is gone now so you'd have to dig back to find what I am talking about) and then I was told that - because it was a GA or FA it couldn't be edited. It read like a 6th grader who has to write a report of 1000 words repeating the same thing paragraph after paragraph - I would know because I probably did that all those years ago. The promotion to GA or FA status was closed after about 5 or 6 editors had commented and the ep hadn't even aired in the US yet. You are right about the problematic nature of the trainspotting (another editor coined the term but I can't remember who at the moment) being added at the moment. The editor does seem to be sourcing some of it but the rest is mostly OR and Synthesis. I was thinking of letting it be for small period of time and then going back through it but don't wait on me if you don't want to. One last note - did you get to see this edit summary ? During one of my repeat viewings of Hands of Fear years ago I noticed that the 4th Dr says "In here you can't hurt us and we can't harm you" (not exact but I am too lazy to grab the DVD at the moment) there is no further line stating whether the "in here" means the entire TARDIS or just that control room so I thought that my idea was a more elegant answer to the conundrum than the one given to Nyssa. Ah well I've taken up too much of your time so back to editing and have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 16:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Depth of field: new image of cat
My apologies for not looking more carefully at the edit history. In fact, I had considered reverting the replacement myself. A glance at that editor’s Talk indicates a pattern of serious problems in following WP policy and plain common courtesy; I’ve added a comment to his Talk agreeing with your revert. JeffConrad (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the greeting. I doubt I will be as active as I used to be, but I will be around. Let me know if you need help with anything. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you
Hi, Marnette. Thanks for the block review, and for your attempts to be objective therein.

I apologize for having to contacting you, but it seems to me that User:Δ has not let go of that matter, and is engaging in tendentious editing, either to harass or provoke me, while claiming that I'm the one engaging in a personal grudge. Specifically, he kept removing a free-use image from an article claiming problems with its rationale, but 'refused to tell me specifically what was wrong with its rationale. In looking over the image, it appeared the the rationale was in order, so I reverted it. After two of my reverts, he reverted again, and placed a 3RR warning on my page, and claimed that I was nursing a grudge, even though I had no intention of ever speaking to him again after my recently reversed block. I pointed out to him repeatedly that the rationale was fine, and he simply insisted it wasn't. I asked him point-blank to help me out by telling me what was wrong with it, and he refused. Because not collaborating or discussing conflicts with the other party is part of edit warring, I reported him to 3RR, the other editor gave him a free pass, despite his uncivil behavior.

Even J Greb has pointed out Δ's inappropriate adherence to letter-of-the-law and lack of clarity. Someone eventually pointed out that the link to the Breen article on the image page's rationale went to a dab page, as the article in question had been moved some time ago. So rather than simply fix the wikilink himself, or tell me that the wikilink was wrong, he engages in this habit of self-righteous deletionism, with no attempt made to work with others and preserve images, or even answer questions when asked. Does this seem like someone who understands collaboration? He could've avoided all of this by simply saying, "The wikilink is wrong", which would've prompted me to fix it. But he instead made no effort at this, and no effort to avoid another conflict, which has the temerity to blame on a grudge on my part. This is in addition to his history of this behavior (as seen by numerous complaints on his talk page), and his having had editing restrictions at NFCC.

Do you think he's going to stop this behavior? Because his most recent message to me (in which he falsely claims that he linked to page indicating the specific problem with the image's rationale) makes no indication that he's going to. Nightscream (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is no bother at all. I am not sure that I have any solutions. My understanding of NFCC is less that nil. My one suggestion is that if future pics come under question that you get other eyes on the situation by going to whatever wikiproject that might be involved with the article in question. If it is something simple then the picture can be saved. If it can't be saved the best thing might be to move on to the next bit of editing - I have had hours and days worth of work that has been deleted for various reasons. It is always a total drag on the other hand there is always vandalism to fight and the occasional thing to add to an article that might enhance it. Have a better week in this upcoming one and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User 92.40.54.198
Hi, re - I don't think that your suspected sock is correct - the most recent actions of mine that might enrage another user concern my posts at User talk:Favonian and the follow up to that; note that F was named in the attacks on me. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Thanks for the update. If you've seen the top of my talk page I have a note from a few years ago about HC who was a true pest. It is old so I'm sure that you are right but that is where I start from. I am always happy to have a tag that I add changed to the correct info and I see that you have already done so. I remember seeing that name in the last few days so I will add it to the memory banks (although those chips are getting older and eroded) and keep it in mind. I'm sorry that you are under siege by this person. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Paris, je t'aime
At risk of sounding argumentative, have you ever seen this movie? And lets forget about that for a moment; the majority of directors involved are independent film directors. If it doesn't say that in the article, well that's not my fault. But it is at the very least an independent film, and there is no category for independent films here. If you want to leave it like that, fine; I'm not gonna fight you over it (I'm sick and tired of doing that at this point). But just consider what I've said. Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have seen it and own the deluxe DVD set. This kind of film has been done before. New York Stories comes to mind. All of that aside per WP:CAT there is supposed to be sourced info in the article to support the categories that are added to it. If you can find any critics/scholars that mention either of those terms then the cat can be readded. MarnetteD | Talk 21:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Followup. Both of those terms have the problem of subjectivity. Also just because a director is "Independent" (not sure what directors aren't) that does not mean that the films the make are avant garde or experimental. MarnetteD | Talk 21:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw your edit summary; I didn't categorize it that way because of its vignette format. And when I say independent, I'm referring to the style marked by mostly aesthetic (as opposed to commercial box office success) sensibilities. But that is interesting what you said about WP:CAT. I didn't necessarily know that, but it makes sense. I just lately started editing films and filmmakers articles that have, like I said, aesthetic sensibilities, but I find it dumbfounding how they have no such indication on there. I mean, isn't Quentin Tarantino known for that? You wouldn't know it looking at his article. But anyway, I think eventually I'm going to have to start my own wikiproject relating to independent/avant-garde/experimental films. I can't do all this myself. But thanks for the tip.  Lighthead  þ 22:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the followup. If you want any input on getting a wikiproject going I can recommend posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. We have a number of experienced and helpful editors in this project and I think that they would be able to give you tips and ideas. MarnetteD | Talk 23:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That'd be great. I was going to do it myself, but if you want to help me out. What do you mean posting? I'm not up on all that lingo. Plain english please.  Lighthead  þ 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically posting is what you do every time you hit the "save page" button. So just click on the link this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and start a thread there just like you did when you started this conversation. I'm afraid that I can't be of much help as I edit is short bursts and I an involved in a major cleanup project at the the moment. But, as I say, there may be editors at that talk page who will be willing to assist. MarnetteD | Talk 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't have to help! I just didn't know what you meant posting. But thanks.  Lighthead  þ 00:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 00:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Godfather
I have this article on my watchlist, so I will be keeping an eye on the situation. A discussion about the length of plot is a good idea. Unnecessary details, like how many times the Don was shot, lead to unnecessary bloat.

If you care for a laugh, you can look at the messages I just deleted from my talkpage. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 99.35.43.199
It seems like a block is in order following final warnings. Would you investigate? Thanks Span (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Spanglej and thanks for your message. I let the admin that I have worked with over the last couple of months in this situation know about this new IP just before I logged off last night. You can see the thread and their response here User talk:Ponyo. So Ponyo is keeping an eye on this IP but if any new ones pop up today please feel free to let this admin know about your suspicions. There is also a thread at the top of Ponyo's talk page from last month about this same editor if you are interested. Thanks for your vigilance - it is much appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Span (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Gone camping
Hi, there, MD. Just to let you know (as I just did with User:Shirtwaist, I'm starting a camping trip 2morrow morning, and with the possible exception of 2morrow's 1 PM stopover, I will be without Net access (or phone for that matter) for one week, and unable to respond to Wiki-messages, or whatever. I won't be able to participate in any debates or lend any helping hands over here at WP. (My super-slow net-accessible cell phone works right on the edge of camp, but as the kids staying are not allowed electronic devices, I, as staff, won't break the rules.)

Don't let anyone add any wooden nickels to Space Odyssey or whatever.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Terence Rattigan
Hi MarnetteD! From the current entry - "Shortly before the war, Rattigan had written (together with Anthony Maurice) a satire about Nazi Germany, Follow My Leader; the Lord Chamberlain refused to license it on grounds of offence to a foreign country, but it was performed from January 1940" However, the recent BBC Radio 4 serialisation of Anthony Darlow's "Life" gives Anthony Maurice as Anthony Goldschmidt. Is 'Maurice' a pseudonym or should the article be revised? Regards, Jatrius (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello J. I found a couple items that might help with you question. This link goes to a website that you might already know about. Playing with google I came up with this . This might not be who you are talking about but if it is then the answer to your question might be that he didn't use his last name - and since it might be to germanic for a country at war there might have been a good reason not to use it - for a period of his life. I can recommend that you ask User:John Thaxter about this. He is a long time theatre critic from England and he has given me a wealth of info over the years. I don't know if he edits as often as he used to so you might have to wait a few days to get your question answered. Hope this was of some help and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sounak Mukhopadhyay
Sorry for placing the tag in the wrong place. Thanks for the rectification. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Killer's Kiss
Yes! That's a good idea. I was thinking that as a lot of features contain notable bonus films (such as Franju's Blood of the Beasts on the Eyes Without a Face DVD. I'd like to include Killer's Kiss somehow, but my only concern is that this page would get really long really fast. Perhaps a discussion the talk page, we could find the way to clean up the page to list specifically the numbered criterion films, and maybe move the other releases (the Merchant Ivory Collection for example) to a different page.

Also, I wish I could get myself the Killing, but i'm so broke that I can only afford Night of the Hunter through the sale. Ah well! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake...
In other words, the one eyed guy with one arm. That came to kill Tuco in his bathwater? I figured it out. THAT was one of the bounty hunters in the opening scene. What threw me is that he really didn't look much the same in that later scene. And also, to be honest, in the opening scene, even though that character fired off a shot in the air, he fell down unconscious and seemed like he bought it too...and died. That's why I was wondering why the article said that only two died, instead of all three. Because it really seemed that that third one got killed also. And again, he didn't look totally the same in that later scene, where he was talking about "learning to shoot with his left hand". lol.... Do you believe that after all these years of knowing about this movie...and seeing it, that just now because of your revert, did I finally figure that out? That guy about to shoot Tuco in the bath was that bounty hunter from the opening. Oh well.... Now I got it. thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. It also took me several viewings over the years to figure out that it was the same actor. I think one of the extras on the Deluxe DVD version points this out as well but I can't remember if it is the commentary or in one of the "making" of documentaries. I know exactly what you are talking about when thinking some part of a film is one thing and it turns out to be another. I saw the film The Red Tent (film) once or twice when it came out and then once on TV. It did not show again for at least a couple of decades after the mid 1970's. For years my memory was that Richard Harris had played the doomed Swedish explorer Finn Malmgren. I told friends and classmates that. Then when it finally came out on VHS in the late 90s or early 00s it turned out that he was played by a Russian actor who I had never seen before. Ah well - thanks for your note and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Marciano
Regarding your recent edit to the Rocky Marciano page, where you removed Gene Tunney as being an undefeated heavyweight boxing champion along with RM, I would argue that point. GT's only official loss came in a light heavyweight bout (as can be seen if you go to his page), not a heavyweight bout, so it would seem to me that he did in fact retire as an undefeated HEAVYWEIGHT champion, even though he did not retire undefeated overall. I have not reverted the edit, but I do think it should be put back in, maybe worded a little differently to stress the importance of the above point. Also, draws, while certainly a blemish, are not losses statistically. What do you think? Vyselink (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone back and reworded it to better fit the facts, but would still like your thoughts on the wording. Vyselink (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The rewording is fine and good job. I was tracking an IP whose edits were problematic at best and who was just messing with articles by adding unsourced factoids. I glad that you fixed anything that I left behind and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Disney
Ta for the info. Certainly a strange bunny taking up a lot of other people's time whatever it's about. Mental health stuff? Best wishes Span (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Disney22 seems to be making much the same adds - Catholic cats. Xzalt also, but with a different pattern. Span (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it may be time for an SPI to be sure. Given IP 99.'s use of the Disney name in the past, noted by Span above and at User talk:Ponyo, and the obsession with religious and political minutiae of screen stars (this time concentrating on the infobox instead of categories), there may be a case for a block on behaviour alone if the checkuser data is stale. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm absolutely convinced that DisneyChicago is the IP 99 editor - check out the history at James Coburn. Disney adds the usual infobox detritus, then IP 99.59.87.62 adds the flagicon immediately after. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 13:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

EGRS/BLPCAT
Hi, I wonder if you could have a neb at Talk:Duncan James. There was a paragraph on James' bisexuality. It was sourced by a deadlink and the fact of his bisexuality appears be non-notable to his public life. I removed with statement, the deadlink and LGBT cats, citing WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT. Eversman maintains this is vandalism and reverted, adding a new link to the Daily Mail to replace the deadlink. Which is fine, but the fact of non-notablity remains. To my knowledge James is not an LGBT advocate in any way. He had a few flings with some blokes and it made the news because he fronted a boy band and the tabloids were titillated. It maybe that the LGBT status is fine, I don't have an axe to grind here. You may have encountered the editor via catholic cat adds. Your thoughts are appreciated. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a look. IMO the mention is of dubious notability but when another editor is so insistent you have to decide how far you want to go. You might post a thread expressing your concerns at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and see what other editors who work with BLPs think. After that is Third opinion and Requests for comment. You probably already know all this but I thought I'd leave you the links anyway. What is wrong is the accusations of vandalism. Not a single one of your edits constitutes vandalism and if E continues to accuse you of that you could seek redress at WP:WQA, at the very least, and even WP:ANI is an option. This kind of thing can be such a drag and I don't know if anything I've said is of any help. In any event I'll wish you a happy weekend and happy editing away from this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 20:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your thoughts. I rarely have been involved in long ranging disputes, so no, this is all useful info. I did post it on the BLP noticeboard, but there have been no replies. I have found this editor to be an uncivil grump with everyone. It doesn't seem worth pursuing. 'Third opinion' is a good idea. Thanks for all your work. Have a good weekend. Span (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

New COSMOS series
Hey! Was going through my Talkpage archives and saw your comment about how you loved the old COSMOS series with Carl Sagan. If you hadn't heard already, there's a new series coming. Apparently, Sagan's wife (who helped write the original series) is going to be a writer for the new one, and it's hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson! &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloat
We seem to have many weeks of bloat going on. Span (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Yeah it kinda looks like or serial "add unecessary items" has returned under a new IP. Oh well the editing never stops. Cheers to you at any rate. MarnetteD | Talk 00:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems like the same guy. Span (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

about Yukio Mishima
Hi MarnetteD!

Did you make sure the definition of「若きサムラヒのための精神講話」三島由紀夫2000 in『決定版 三島由紀夫全集〈35〉』(新潮社) in the original?--Watson system (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the English language Wikipedia. Unless you can provide translations of sources that you cite they cannot be verified and, therefore, cannot be used. Neither Scott-Stokes nor John Nathan make mention of Eto having any effect on Mishima. BTW, the sentence you are trying to insert makes no sense whatsoever. MarnetteD | Talk 02:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a conversation about this here on Watson system's page. In this case the bigger problem is that it's Mishima's own writings being used as a source (WP:Primary applies). For Watson system: the policy on use of non-English sources is at WP:NONENG.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian vandal
I see our old friend was back during my absence. I promise to carry my share of the weight in future. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I carried a "flagon of whiskey" with me on my train ride to L.A. I decided not to bother with the snake, though I am sure there were plenty in New Mexico and Arizona.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  19:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Laurel & Hardy short subject articles
Hi MarnetteD, I restored the "Sons of the Desert" section you deleted from Bacon Grabbers because the Sons really is the core of L&H interest and scholarship in these latter days, and being the namesake of a "tent" is a point of notability for an L&H two-reeler short. Cheers — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. While I take your point the section is unsourced. If it is still the name for this chapter then it should be fairly easy for you to provide a WP:RS and then the section should be fine. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Forget it. I don't care enough. The least you could've done was commented it out, rather than deleting it. Every tent has an entry among the short subject articles, so you better get deleting. You have a lot of them to do. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Film cleanup
Hi. Please avoid removing the top level country cats (Category:American films, Category:British films, etc), per WP:FILMCAT. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Marnette. Yes, the film country template forces the category. This is also the case for the film date and language templates, but it's considered best to include the category as well.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me - keep up the good work!  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clean up work on Being Caribou. I do however disagree with your deletion of the See also section, which had a link to a film called Oil on Ice, also about the impact of oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This sort of link is permitted by WP:SEEALSO and is useful to readers, and as the two films are so similar, I'd like to ask that you allow me to restore that section. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Hugh Walters (actor) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugh Walters (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hugh Walters (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
All the best, mate! Cheers Daisyabigael (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Godfather Part III
If you have a moment, and the inclination, would you mind taking a look at this and adding your two cents worth? I was really hoping other editors would have gotten involved in the discussion by now. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 02:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello RJ. My apologies for not responding sooner. My weekend was very hectic and disjointed and that led to limited editing here at WikiP. It looks like you have things in hand at the moment so I may wait to see if there is any more response to your post before adding my two cents. FWIW I kinda find those "these were my thoughts about a sequel" items in a DVD commentary interesting. For instance the plans they had for a followup to Michael Caine's The Italian Job were fascinating - though I am also glad they never filmed it as that bus in a literal cliffhanger is one of my favorite film endings ever. However that does not mean that they should be added to an encyclopedia's articles. In this case there is the problem of WP:PRIMARY since it is only being sourced to FFC. If there were secondary sources discussing plans for a fourth film then the question of inclusion becomes stickier. I apologize if I am letting you down. You might also post your question at the film projects talk page if you feel like it. Otherwise have a superb week and it is always great to hear from you. MarnetteD | Talk 20:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You have no reason to apologize, neither for the delay nor for expressing your opinion. I had no presumption when asking that you would necessarily agree with me, I simply wanted to hear your perspective.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  01:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit to Tinker Tailor
Just as a by-the-by; I saw your comment on the revert. The edit was presumably some eejit who has seen the film and taken it upon himself to correct an article about the book. I'm not sure why, but for the film they changed the setting of Prideaux's shooting (etc) to Budapest and Tarr's mission to Istanbul. I'm guessing they were shooting in Hungary so it was easier to use location footage for both than find a bit of wherever in Hungary which looked like Hong Kong. Just for your information - feel free to delete this message. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I have been conflicted about whether I wanted to see the film in light of how good the series with Alec Guinness is. If they are making major changes like the ones you are describing then I am more likely to keep my money in my pocket :-) I know that remakes are inevitable but when they try to jam storytelling that occurred over several hours on television into a couple of hours in a theatre the result can be so unsatisfactory. I haven't been able to look at the remake of Brideshead Revisited for much the same reason. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your "bit of WP:OR"
I think that's a good theory, at least, it makes sense at the "gut level." I do not know if I want to be more vigilant, actually, I know I do not want to be, but something prevents me from leaving this place for very long. And it is not some romantic/naive "belief in the project." Indeed, I think the project's concept has some obvious flaws. End IP editing right now and a lot of our problems would disappear. I fail to understand the arguments against it. Alas... Have a good week! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 03:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Wikipedia...
I read somewhere, though I remember not where, that those three films formed a loose trilogy. But, they have no common characters, or even themes, really. If it is true, it is the loosest of loose trilogies I have ever heard of. It certainly does not belong in the lede of that article when it is speculative and unsourced. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 01:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * James Coburn was great. I am not familiar with the film you mentioned, though, so I am going to have to look for it.  I was watching the documentary about Sam Peckinpah that was included in the extras on The Wild Bunch recently, and it included comments from Coburn about working with Sam.  Great stuff.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Destry Rides the First Time
I figured that the problem with a disambiguation page is that people are much less likely to refer to it than glancing up at the hatnote (unfamiliar with that word but I like it), especially in this case, when the '39 Dietrich-Stewart movie is so infinitely more famous than the Tom Mix or later versions. But it probably wouldn't be a bad idea based on the length of it. Hey, Stewart got Dietrich pregnant in '39 then she aborted the baby, according to Peter Bogdanovich, who heard the story from Dietrich decades later on a plane (I heard this story directly from Bogdanovich in person). What would that kid have been like? Upsmiler (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, for a fairly recent Bogdanovich film that I really loved, check out The Cat's Meow from a few years back, a more or less true story involving the murder aboard William Randolph Hearst's yacht when Hearst mistook a producer for Charles Chaplin, with whom Hearst's mistress Marion Davies was enjoying an affair. Very well-made movie with music from the period, which makes it quite strange and unique but might be the reason it sank at the box office (I saw it twice during its first release).  Upsmiler (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dating styles
Ah, sorry about that. I had checked a few other pages first to see if it was the right way, but I must've checked all non-british pages, lol. Brandov
 * No problem. With continued editing you will get the hang of the difference in dating and spelling differences between the UK and the US. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sun/Son
You're right, MarnetteD. I myself have already reverted this same mistake on the Guinness page on a number of occasions. It's amazing - and frustrating - how some editors insist on this error without even bothering to check the play's original text. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note MUSIKVEREIN. Yes it is frustrating, although to be honest I have reverted things a time or two without looking closely enough at what I was doing. If it keeps happening we might try adding a hidden note explaining things like I did here so that editors don't keep making the same mistake. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. As an aside to this Richard's opening speech was one of the ones I learned in my theater classes in High School and I can still recite most of it today :-) Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter
The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Trilogy
I guess I was unclear before. I was aware of the alternative title of Duck, You Sucker. But, even with the original title, there is little to support the notion of the three films as a trilogy, certainly not in the sense of The Godfather or Star Wars trilogies, i.e., there are no common characters or storylines. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 15:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily
A discussion you previously took part in regarding the Equestria Daily page has been relisted for deletion. Dr. WTF (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A new deletion review has been created regarding the same topic. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ben Kingsley
Hello. I see that you reverted my edits re Kingsley's early life, citing "blanking vandalism". I have two issues with that section as it currently stands. Firstly, it states that his maternal grandmother's maiden name was Goodman, yet one of the citations claims that Kingsley's mother was born out of wedlock to a father who may have been called Goodman. Since Kingsley's maternal grandparents never married, for the initial statement to be true it would mean that both of them were born as Goodman, which I find highly improbable. Unless you can find a source to corroborate this, I would suggest removing it.

My second objection concerns the allegation that Kingsley's grandfather may have been Jewish. This is unreliable conjecture, not fact, regardless of who said it, and therefore not particularly relevant to an encyclopaedic bio. Perhaps you should consider moving it to a trivia section, should you feel that the world needs to know this titbit.

If you choose not to address these concerns in good time, I'll be happy to make the necessary changes for you. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.0.36 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to post these on the talk page for the Kingsley article. Be aware that we do not edit based on your feelings or conjecture. We only use reliable sources and you will need to bring new one forward to refute those already used in the article. You can also post questions at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎. You will also need to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your changes before reinserting them. MarnetteD | Talk 23:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.0.36 (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Laurel and Hardy infoboxes
Why are you deleting the "Preceded by" and "Followed by" fields from the Laurel and Hardy infoboxes? They were not my additions, but I've found them a really handy way to get around the L&H short subject articles. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted a longer answer on this editors talk page but here is the pertinent info for any talk page watchers. In answer to your question those fields were deactivated by consensus eight or nine months ago so they no longer are visible in the infoboxes. They were originally meant for film series like Star Wars and not just for the last and next film made by actors, directors etc but it got even more confusing when people started entering books or TV series into the fields. One reason I am removing them is so that new editors who cut and paste an infobox from an article (rather than coping the template) don't wind up trying to use them and then get frustrated when they can't see the information. I think I understand where you are coming from (and please forgive me if I am wrong) in that you liked having the info at the top of the article. But at least the template at the bottom of the articles still allows access to their filmographies (together and separate) where readers and editors can see the order that the films were released in. MarnetteD | Talk 20:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that certainly makes sense. Thanks for the speedy answer. I know you've already invested once in a L&H collection, but there's a new one — a Region 1 one — coming out on October 26th. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005BYBZKY It's every frame of their Roach talkie output, all 40 talkie shorts, and all of the Roach features. All-new HD transfers, from Roach vault and Library of Congress prints, all original Roach title cards; some of those titles have been "slumbering" since 1930! Best of all: it's only $67 at Amazon. There's also a big restoration project of the original camera negs underway at UCLA, but that's five or six years before completion. It's important this new set sells well, because if it doesn't it will certainly be the last gasp of L&H editions, so you must scrape up the $67 and order a set. I don't know if you've discovered http://www.laurelandhardyforum.com/ yet, but it's a must-go if you're a fan. All the top L&H scholars — Skretvedt, Bann, McGillivray — are active there and it's an incredible resource. Now order that set! :)  — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)