User talk:Melty girl/Archive1

Once
Hi, thanks for the message about Once - the article's looking good now. If you look at the template on the talkpage, it tells you everything it needs to be upgraded. I think it could just do with a cast section. See WP:MOSFILMS if you need help. When it has that, feel free to upgrade it yourself, as anyone can assess articles. Just change to  on the talkpage. Have you thought about joining WikiProject Films? Cheers, -- Beloved freak  09:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy (assessment)
Hi. I don't particularly think the Cillian Murphy article needs any improvement. It's just that it needs to go through the WikiProject Biography/A-class review process before the Biography project will consider it to be anything more. At least that's my understanding. Deb 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Scarecrow rumors
Please see WP:RS and WP:V before adding photos or rumours from "scooper" reports. It could be anybody under that mask. And we should not make notes of rumours: this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Alientraveller 21:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy.... again ;-)
Hi Melty Girl.... I was going to name this section "Cillian Murphy" but someone beat me to it. Thanks for your message - well, I like the article a lot. I love that it is so carefully sourced, and in that regard many other articles could use it for inspiration. I also, personally, like quotes and I think they've been used really well. The only criticisms I can see are very minor but here goes... I think using parenthesis creates an awkward effect and often states something that doesn't need to be said. For example in the lead it says "he often (but not always)..." "Often" very clearly indicates "not always" so to restate it is redundant. I think removing some of the parenthesis and bringing the text if relevant into the sentence, would give it a cleaner look and made it easier to read. I think it's very interesting, intriguing even, that he was compared to Robert Mitchum, but it would be even more intriguing if it was put into a little bit of context by explaining just a little of what was said. Otherwise it's like a half-completed thought. Be careful of "present time" usage. eg "recently finished", "has been spotted" and "just cast". Suppose nobody updates this for a year. It will be very confusing. Better to use dates, even if the date was yesterday. eg "After filming was completed in April 2007...." or "In July 2007, Murphy was cast in ....." Also, if something is unknown it's best to say nothing. eg "though it's not known how big his role in the upcoming film may be", could and should be removed. The important part is that he's playing the part, we can edit this again later to note its significance. I think there are some instances of a somewhat informal tone being adopted that could easily be reworded into something a little more formal, while still retaining the engaging style that flows very well throughout the article. eg "Murphy also knows what he does not want to do in the future: any more bad guys." The only bit that I think really needs to be reworked is the lead section. I think it should give a good overview of the article as a whole as per WP:LEAD. It seems to me like too much is crammed into the lead. In my opinion, the lead section does not require such detailed notation of sources as the article. The reason is that the lead should be a summary of the article, and therefore nothing should be in the lead, that is not also in the article. In the article everything should be carefully attributed making it unnecessary to duplicate the sourcing in the lead. This makes the lead easier to and cleaner to read also. Now, not everyone agrees with that. It's a little contraversial and I've seen discussions that take either side. I think the article is very, very good, and I'm very happy to pick it to pieces in the hope that it's useful to you. It's obviously had a lot of work put into it, so it deserves to be examined closely. Have you looked through some of the Featured articles? There's a lot of good stuff there. Eric Bana is a good example in my opinion, and Cillian Murphy is not very far behind it. Rossrs 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, you're welcome. The first step would be to list it on Peer review where hopefully other editors will look at it and comment. Don't be discouraged if you don't receive much feedback as it is a little undependable. Then, I would suggest checking it against the "Good article" criteria and nominate it for "Good article" review at Good article candidates. Rossrs 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more thing that I just noticed. IMDb is usually regarded as an OK source for filmographies but is generally frowned upon as a source for other things.  IMDb biographies are usually written by anyone who wants to contribute and sources are not usually checked.  Therefore I think you'd do well to try to find other sources to replace the IMDb ones. (WP:RS) Sorry, I didn't even notice that when I read through it before. Rossrs 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I wish you good luck in its passing. Alientraveller 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy image
Well, others have noticed your many edits as well as me, it seems. Please use the "Show Preview" and refrain from too many edits in a row as you currently do, it fills the page. Can you please also delete the message on my user page telling me my image has been deleted from his article, too? You are likely the one who replaced it so I ask that you do that. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * well it would be common courtesy. Still, I removed it so it no longer matters. Are you sure you were not the one who removed it, you've made a lot of edits.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal
I wrote the article, please don't try to tell me how to format its references. I didn't bother because the article needs sprucing up with Zodiac info anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't be silly. I own the article because I didn't format a citation? Go ahead and write up about Zodiac and see if I stop you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's call this a misunderstanding. My point was not "I wrote the article, piss off, I'll do what I like to it and policy be damned", it was meant to be "I wrote this article, so I formatted all the other 70 or so references and therefore I don't appreciate being told how/ordered to do it because I am not a newbie." Someone else added the info, I was working it in with the text, I hate formatting refs so I didn't bother, knowing that I would have to update the article soon anyway and it could be done then. It's not incumbent on me to format it if I don't want to, nothing on Wikipedia is obligatory. I appreciate that you care about the article, and presumably Jake himself, and if the citation really bugs you, format it! Just as I was cleaning up someone else's edit, you are more than welcome to clean up mine. It's not my article, remember. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Too many article on my watchlist and too many changes to track in too little time. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help with film article
I am a history student at UGA and I have created and edited Abby Singer (film) as a film history project. I need to improve this article. Also it has been said that it is not notable. Please help CamdawgUGA 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy - Good article?
Hi Melty girl..... Yes, it's an article, and it's good. So in my opinion it's a good article. First of all, I think you've done great things with the article. Comparing it with other good articles for film performers, I would say that it's on a par, and better than some of them. I'd be surprised if it doesn't pass. I can't see anything that obviously needs work.

Going through the good article criteria one at a time :

1. Well written? Yes, it's clear and concise, complies with manual of style etc. 2. Factually accuarate and verifiable? Yes, the sourcing is well presented, thorough and carefully put together. It's one of the article's stregths. 3. Broad in it's coverage? - Yes, it covers his whole life and career with just the right balance. It's comprehensive, focussed, doesn't stray into anything irrelevant. Another strength. 4. Neutral? Yes, it is. It's obviously written by someone who likes Murphy, but there is no fan-gush. Everything's supported. Has anyone ever said anything negative about him? I'm not suggesting you go looking for negative comments just to artificially make this seem neutral, but if there are any significant comments that fall short of praise, well, they would be worth including. Not a major thing though, as he's young, he'll give a stinker of a performance one day, and we'll write a paragraph or two about it! ;-) 5. Stable?  Yes.  The recent edits have done nothing but improve it, but it's at a stage where it needs the same fine tuning of any other article, but no major reconstruction.  6. Images?  Yes.  Very fortunate to have a fairly good free image.  The screenshot is a bit more of a problem.  It needs to be more than decorative, so maybe discussion of the role needs to complement the image and vice versa.  It's also too large and should be re-uploaded at a lower resolution.  It also needs a fair use rationale....I'll have a look at that.

So, I'd say it deserves to pass as is. You've put a lot of effort into this and it shows. Well done. Cheers Rossrs 09:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I don't think you need to expand the discussion of Red Eye just to make the image fit. I think there is enough discussion about this role in the main part of the article, as well as a reference to his villainy in the lead.   I've reduced the size/resolution of the image in line with policy, and have added the Template:Non-free media rationale, so I think that's enough.  Rossrs 14:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your ideas sound good. The length of the GA process is unpredictable.  Some reviewers look at the older nominations first, while others will go for the one that interests them most.  I notice there are only a few actors listed at the moment, so naturally anyone looking to review an actor only has a small list to choose from, so I don't think it will take long. Rossrs 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Welcome
It appears we didn't officially welcome you to the project, sorry about the delay!  Welcome! Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for July has been published.  August's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!
 * Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 00:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

About the WP:$
Sorry, perhaps I should have been more specific as to what I was referring to in the Manual of Style. The second last point in this section explicitly states (the one I assume you used to know to put it in parenthesis) "Conversions of less familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies, such as the euro or the US dollar.". This makes it clear that the US dollar and the euro are exempt from this, because they are the currencies reccomended for giving the conversion in. As such, I've reverted your readdittion of the dollar estimate. - Estoy Aquí (t • c • e) 10:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection details
Hello. Was checking the "vandal boards" and noticed your request for protecting a page there. The best place to request page protection would be at WP:RFP. I'm not sure you'll get much success on it, though-from what I've seen in the past, the admins tend to leave the pages alone and let the editors catch all the vandalism on Featured Articles (I've never really understood why they never at least semi-protect, but that's Wikipedia for you!). Just wanted to point you in the right direction! -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 17:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate characterization
Your insertion of the characterization "gay cowboy" of Jake Gyllenhaal's character in Brokeback Mountain is simply inaccurate as a description of the film. That particular description entered informal description of the film in popular discourse—I myself jokingly talked about he "gay cowboy movie" prior to seeing the film (and only knowing the general premise).

It's not really an offensive term—I might still describe it that way while being slightly tongue-in-cheek—but it is also not a truthful or helpful description; it is certainly not encyclopedic. If you saw the film, you know that a big part of the point of the story was the deliberately unanswered question of whether Jack was gay, or bisexual, or had a "special" connection to Ennis apart from his other sexuality, or whether the question itself was not meaningful. Just using bad shorthand because the same term is popularly used ironically doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.

I'd be open for some other short phrase than the one I used, if you felt it read better. But I'm definitely not good with mischaracterizing the film just to stick in a "cute" phrase. LotLE × talk 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, if you put in the same mischaracterization one more time, I'll go ahead and put it on WP:3RR. Compromise language is fine (and I've tried some), but sticking in a tired caricature of a good film just is not fine.  LotLE × talk  22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal + Infobox actor
Hello Melty girl, I was looking at today's featured article and checked its the history and seems like you contributed a lot to it so I wanted to stop by and say good work, I really enjoyed reading it. Also thanks for keeping an eye on Infobox actor and reverting those arbitrary changes. I had to take some break from that template but its good to know that other people have been on top of things. Anyway, take good care of yourself, happy editing... --Kudret abi 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy talk page templates
First congratulations and well done on the Cillian Murphy GA. The GA template is usually the first template and project templates come after that, so I don't know why you would want to put the GA template in second position. Check out most any FA or GA and you will see what I mean. I reassessed the article with the new Ireland WikiProject template. Cheers ww2censor 06:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point about jumping back and forth between talk pages! It is strange to have only half of my conversations living here. Anyway, thank you for the congratulations -- months of learning about Wiki and careful writing and sourcing yielded my first GA! Yay. And also, thank you for the tip on the template positions. I actually didn't arrange them that way -- initially, I merely flipped the bio template and the Ireland template within the project box, since Cillian Murphy is a lower priority to the latter project, and that was the previous order until other editors switched them. But I did check out what you were saying, and now I think the talk page looks much better. The GA/article history box is on top, and I grabbed an introductory template and so on. Thanks! --Melty girl 06:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all a learning process. Not bad though for 5 months editing. I have not yet contributed significantly to a GA but it has taken me more than 18 months to nurture one article to FA. While you now have only 2 WikiProject templates on the talk page more may come and then you will likely need to reintroduce the Banner Shell that you removed, otherwise the page start to get very crowded up top—actually with all the additions it is already starting to get busy. Anyway good luck on the next one. The WikiProject Ireland needs to get more GAs and FAs and now that you are an expert (!) maybe you can find a suitable topic to put your efforts into, such as, Colin Farrell which is currently rated B, or one of the other actors listed here if actors are your forte. Cheers ww2censor 13:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gathering the research materials happened before I started editing the article, so in a way, it took much longer than 5 months. I'm not quite that obsessed with other actors (yikes!), though I do edit many actor pages, but I have done some work on Cillian Murphy-related articles, such as Once, 28 Days Later and Breakfast on Pluto (which hasn't been tagged by WikiProject Ireland, by the way). Good point on the banner shell. I have to admit, I didn't like how it makes everything more narrow and thus longer... but if another project arrives, the show/hide feature will probably be a necessity. --Melty girl 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know what you mean about more time gathering info on some topics. I would wait and see if more projects hang onto this article before changing the template. The Ireland WikiProject is just now attempting to tag all the Irish articles but we are working on some criteria at the moment. You can always tag it based on your best assessment remembering the basic ideas of relative importance within a project and type of article. I see the film project has rated Breakfast on Pluto as Start & Mid; I would have rated it Start & Low as an Irish article not a film article. TTFN ww2censor 17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The August 2007 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. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 04:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hee!
your username amuses me, as does being called a "good egg". :) &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 17:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it's terribly British; amusing, given I are one. &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call
Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add   to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing! An automatic notification by BrownBot 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

re:On minor edits
Thanks for your comment; I'll be more careful in the future. Parsecboy 05:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy (A-class)
The article has been approved for A status. I'm sorry it took a bit longer than expected. Congratulations! :-) - Duribald 20:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your article was good. Otherwise I would have written a long list of objections. No need for me to get involved personally, as two votes is the minimum. :-) -Duribald 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Elisha Cuthbert
As a previous contributor to this article, I'd like to invite you to express your opinion. THere have been a number of issues recently, and we ahve reached consensus on all but one of them: whether or not a Canadian flagicon should be included in the infobox. Please express your opinion, along with your reasons, at Talk:Elisha Cuthbert. Thank you. &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 22:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Irelandproj
Hi Melty Noticed your comments on the Cillian article (congrats on the A). Nothing specific against your subject, but film actors don't rate too high in the Irish Wiki scheme of things! - (eg Pierce Brosnan is low as well, and Colin Farrell isn't rated at all). Maybe we need to upgrade film stars a bit - the 'importance' may indeed need revising as you suggest. (Sarah777 01:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC))


 * I've upped the importance to "mid" (can't guarntee there will be no objections mind)......but the issue of why BioographyProj and IrelandProj should differ on the quality rating is a point. An A should be an A regardless of the importance or the Project I'd reckon.(Sarah777 21:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Take It Down From Featured Article Status

 * I don't know how the committee coulda missed the quotation. In fact, they featured this terribablly poor quality article!70.74.35.53 05:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said "quotation", I meant quotation70.74.35.53 05:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Batman
Hello. I notice that you are putting the "Batman film series actors" category on actors' articles. In case you were intending to add many, I thought I should let you know that the category is up for deletion (similar categories have been deleted before). You can, of course, contribute to the deletion discussion. Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just spied this whole mess as I was working on adding actors. This was my first foray into categories, so I was not familiar with any of the category parameters and so was surprised to learn of all this history and sockpuppetry. Thanks for the message! --Melty girl 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Eva Green
You know, this might be the reason why I subconsciously didn't add any images in the first place. God I hate fair use hounds who treat as if I'm stupid. Suggestions for a replacement though? I picked it because the scene shows Lynd as an emotionally fragile character. Alientraveller 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand your frustration. The issue is difficult to navigate. I left a comment on the image talk page. I see what you're saying about Lynd as emotionally fragile. I would just seek out a better example of this and make sure to discuss the concept in the prose. --Melty girl 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact is, that's what I could find, and I have one fair use hound after my skin. It's just annoying. Either way, if you come to be GAR, just remember WP:WIAGA footnote number five. Alientraveller 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bold text