User talk:Steve/Archive 8

CUT
Well done dear boy. Very good article. I hadn't actually realised how much credit they had earned and deserved for what they'd achieved. I'd tended to assume that events just kind of caught up with them organically. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And no, I didn't realise either until I started trawling for sources. And I still half suspect you're right, that maybe new technologies were the "major driving forces" we should be crediting. But in this case, all we can go with is what the sources say (even if The Register isn't always the best for a NPOV). Steve  T • C 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for DYK dear boy! :) — Erik (talk • contrib) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A fine suggestion, er, old chap! (Did it within two minutes of creating the article.) Steve  T • C 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you!
On behalf of all the editors, I just wish to convey thanks for the help you gave in getting the SECR N class article to FA, and for being a patient reviewer in the process. There was a lot of work that needed doing to the article, but now it will provide a yardstick for future railway-related FA attempts. Once again, thank you! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Silent Alarm FAC
Hi there, Karanacs recommended asking you for an FA review.

The article I've linked hasn't gathered new comments in days and is also lacking supports/opposes. I would be grateful if you had a look and gave your verdict. I think it's worth the promotion, even though I'm totally biased, but I think that may be the reason people aren't commenting since most only like to write negative comments or things to improve.

Thanks in advance. Rafablu88 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm editing at a significantly reduced rate at the moment due to an abominable real-life workload, but if I get the chance to look over the article I will. It might not be a full review, but hopefully I'll at least be able to throw some useful comments your way before Tuesday's pr/ar. All the best, Steve  T • C 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I should be able to give you something of use either this evening or tomorrow. All the best, Steve  T • C 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. Rafablu88  18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was wondering if you are any closer to giving a verdict following your comments being resolved? No rush, but it'd be nice to get a consensus going. Thanks. Rafablu88  21:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. No problem with revisiting; I planned to look back in at some point tomorrow, and will do just that. :-) Steve  T • C 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. ;) Rafablu88  21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Plot" section for guidelines
I know you only stepped in briefly to clarify the "specialist knowledge" element to another editor, but I was wondering if you could review the rewrite so far and share any additional thoughts before I implement the draft. Thanks! — Erik (talk • contrib) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve we're trying to think of a film article that includes its primary source. Can you help? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am well aware that the film is the primary source for film articles (it's not "treated as the primary source" as Erik erroneously phrases it). I think you may be missing something, though. Erik's draft includes material from wp:psts that lays out when it is permissible to include primary sources in Wikipedia articles. So the question naturally arises, What material is thereby referred to in the context of a film article? You, for example, suggested that Changeling's film article includes its primary source. Personally, I don't find it there but I'd like you to tell me where to look for the primary source material for Changeling in the article on Changeling. I hope that's clear. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the primary source for the film article entitled Changeling (film)? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to make it easier for Erik. In my opinion, the primary source for the film article entitled 'Changeling (film)' = the film entitled 'Changeling'. The primary source is the film. So now let me ask you again, Where in the film article for Changeling do you find the primary source? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I explained it to you on your talk page. Putting the primary source on the film article is basically having a video clip of the whole film so readers can play the film, which is not at all realistic.  The primary source (as well as the secondary source) exist outside the article, and we reference them to provide the article with content. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right, Erik. You finally figured it out. And your quote from wp:psts concerns when to include primary sources in Wikipedia. Let me say it again: you quoted material in the guidelines that tells editors when they should include primary source material in their articles. That quote is good advice for those cases where primary sources are to be included in an article. So any time a film article includes its primary source, that guideline comes into play. In light of that, how many film articles will be required to follow the guidelines you quoted on the inclusion of primary source material in Wikipedia articles? Erik or Steve, feel free to throw out a number. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I quote this from WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." When it says "used in Wikipedia", it means referenced.  It does not mean actually adding the whole primary source to the article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you're mistaken. That section has to do with including part of a primary source in a Wikipedia article, as you will find if you go to Philosophical Investigations. There are actual passages from the work. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an analogy will help. Chess and checkers have different rules, just as there are different guidelines for using primary sources and for writing plot summaries. If you include a rule for chess in the checkers rulebook, you're making a mistake. It's not like you can even follow the rule, because the chess pieces don't appear on the board in checkers. That's what you're doing when you tell a plot summarist what to do about primary sources. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am moving this discussion to Ring Cinema's talk page. Steve does not deserve all this. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about Erik, Steve. We were having a reasonable exchange before he came along. I'll get back to you later. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Steve sorry about getting after you earlier. I wasn't interpreting PSTS correctly so it led me astray. Thanks a lot for your efforts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

PR request
If you've got time and drive, I'd be happy to hear your opinion of Star Trek: First Contact. I've opened up a PR here and I figure it's best to get your imminent oppose at FAC out of the way at a much earlier stage :) Cheers, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One of these days I'm going to go into a FAC review and not oppose right off the bat. :-) It would be a pleasure to give it the once over—it won't be right away, as real-life is a little hectic, but I've added it to my "honestly, definitely will get around to" list. Steve  T • C 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club FAC
After Laserbrain's comment at FAC, I attempted a second copy-edit of the article. Can you review the writing and see what needs further addressing? I think the toughest elements are the technical detail and the transitions between separately cited sentences. — Erik (talk • contrib) 16:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing; apart from the odd edit here and there, I've tried to stay away from tweaking the article too much since you began the FAC as I guessed you'd want to tackle any concerns yourself. Still, I'm at your complete disposal should you want any help. On this issue, do you want me to list the prose issues I see (if any), or do you want me to implement any recommendations I might have as I go along? Either is fine with me. Oh, and have you seen this news? On the one hand, Carnahan writes much better dialogue than Straczynski; on the other, JMS dropped a hint that Carnahan was brought on board to "simplify the script" and make it more straightforward. Steve  T • C 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the consideration. I think after copy-editing the article twice, I'm going to be blind to any further changes that need to be made.  (I hope that they'll be on the more mundane side, with weird language already addressed.)  If you can implement any changes to improve the prose, you're welcome to do so.
 * "Simplify the script"? Such a red flag if there ever was one. :(  I didn't like The Kingdom; I don't remember any standout dialogue from that film.  Hopefully the film adaptation won't be too watered down when/if it's finally made. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh shit, I was thinking of Tony Gilroy (though I note he's got some stinkers to his name too). Steve  T • C 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

← Your copy-editing is much appreciated! Next time, I'll definitely take more into consideration the importance of it. — Erik (talk • contrib) 15:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh hey, you're welcome. :-) It's not as if it needs a rewrite or anything; I think you can be confident in your own writing ability (man, that sounds patronising—sorry). A lot of it has been minor, and I'd be encouraged by the fact that the other reviewers have pitched in as much as they have; if they felt it was a long way off, I don't think they would have been as thorough, and might instead have pushed for withdrawal. When I post my thoughts to the FAC page later, I won't be commenting on the prose, as that's already had plenty said about it and the recommended changes are well in hand. But if I had managed to get around to reviewing before the others did, it's likely I'd only have asked you to look at two areas: redundancies and the occasional non-idiomatic expression. The first I think is a by-product of the care with which you've crafted the article; there's a great precision to the text in places, and that's good, but sometimes it means that a reader can get halfway through a sentence having already been imparted with its full meaning... and then have to read another bunch of words that only serve to delay the next interesting tidbit. I don’t know if you ever read Tony's guide, but I found it a massive help when I first started preparing Changeling FAC.
 * The second area is really very minor, but I get the impression that in trying to paraphrase, you've deliberately tried to avoid using words and phrases that are also in the cited text, instead using synonyms that perhaps don't conform to idiom. It's difficult because these are professional writers we're citing, and they've quite often selected the best way of saying something, leaving us with the dregs to choose from. Anyway, most of those seem to have disappeared, so hopefully the nomination (complete with the inevitable fair-use debate!) can proceed apace. :-) All the best, Steve  T • C 18:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will definitely check out Tony's guide in my future FA attempts. I'm really happy that so many editors have been willing to improve the prose—a true wiki effort!  I'm unclear about your thoughts on the second area.  I understand what you mean, but what is the best approach to this?  Is it okay to use their wording sometimes, and should I always quote their words even if it's only the best possible verb for a sentence? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you were to ask at WP:PLAGIARISM you'd get 100 different answers. There are usually a few good ways of saying something, but for my part on the few occasions I've had to make the choice, I think I prefer to keep the word while changing the structure of the sentence or paragraph as much as possible to avoid inadvertently hewing too close. This is a real pain when I don't fully understand the cited article :-) (American Cinematographer, I'm looking at you!) Steve  T • C 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Swiftly reverted"?
Your edits sat there for months before being changed. They were even applied to other articles. Just what are you trying to pull? I'm sorry that you aren't happy about your edits being removed from the article, but what's currently there is factually accurate and verified. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Well, less than one month actually; I considered that swift in the scheme of things, though I accept that my choice of wording could be seen as antagonistical, so I apologise for that. I hope that given the time I spent copyediting the article my good faith in helping you get it to FA standard is clear; hopefully it'll get through this time. All the best, Steve  T • C 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

the swine
Steve, thanks for your kind words on my talk page. It will take a little while to regain my strength. Tony  (talk)  12:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Adminship
Hey, I asked Erik the same question, but would you consider running for adminship? I would consider nominating you if you want to chat about it, and if you think you'd have a use for the tools. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  It's time.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's "no" again, we could start a pool. :) It's only a matter of time. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Come to the dark side... we have chips and dip! Although Sandy can't say jack, the real money is in the long-term pool on when she'll bite the bullet :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey everyone; I guess I can't ignore all these voices all night. :-) Actually, I started crafting a reply, but it's turning out to be longer than I thought, so I'll have to delay posting until the morning; hope you all don't mind. :-) @Andy: Similarly with your question at the Fight Club FAC, which sent my thoughts off on an entirely unnecessary digression that I decided was too long to post after all. I'll have to post a shorter version over there tomorrow too. All the best, Steve  T • C 23:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Tony   (talk)  07:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, how can I ignore such a catchy rhythm? OK, screw the long answer; the last thing this place needs is more navel-gazing. It should wait until the "colossal real-life workload" banner disappears from the top of this page, but after that ... why the heck not? If nothing else, it'll mean I can stop having to think of new excuses to give Sandy. Thanks to everyone for the trust shown in my ability not to screw things up. :-) Steve  T • C 07:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you're ready now? Co-nom from me and The Purple One?  Let me know ... since I'm swamped, it may take me a bit to write up the blurb ... or maybe The Purple Laser can start the process and I can tack mine on.  Good luck :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's an offer you can't refuse. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at recent RfA criteria, but I do hope that only my signature, and not my brains, will be required on the "contract". :p And really, I wouldn't worry about having time to craft a nomination statement; as I say, it should really wait until my real-life workload has returned to normal levels to make sure I have time to respond to the questions in full. So take your time. :-) Steve  T • C 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy, do you have time to get it started, and I'll add on when I have a free moment? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be my pleasure. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, It has been my pleasure working with you. When the nomination comes through, I will votes STRONG YES. I would nominate you myself if that helps. --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I created the nomination page here. Sandy will add her co-nom when she has time, and you can draft answers to the questions in your copious leisure time. There is obviously no hurry—we will not open this until your workload subsides, etc. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, I may not get to it for another week; is that OK? Remember not to sign, transclude, etc. until we're all ready.  Do you by chance have a link to the ANI discussion on the Syracuse guy article (can't remember name right now, swamped) where I saw your temperament, and how you calmed that messy situation?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: nice blurb, Andy. Damn.  Tough act to follow (especially with my sucky prose).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, pish. You're being modest. PS, do you mean the Aaron Sorkin thing? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Andy; yes, that's it. (I don't watch TV, so I forget those names ... )  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I've been really busy ... please ping me when you're ready, so I can set aside time to add my blurb. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ready whenever you are, but take your time; there's no great rush if you're swamped. I haven't drafted any replies to the standard questions yet, but I know roughly what I'm going to say so it won't take me too long to throw something together. All the best, Steve  T • C 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just throw in some mentions of "audited content" and I'll blindly vote support! ok, RfA humor, pay no attention... -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See now, I'm going to have to change what I've already written in the last ten minutes, an answer to question two that begins "On the audited content side ..." :-) Khaaaan Fuuuchhhs! Steve  T • C 20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gratuitous Star Trek references are entirely right by me. I'll give you barnstars for however many pop culture refs you can squeeze in :P -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get in on it soon ... before Friday. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really happening, isn't it? I wonder if it's not too late to order catering... — Erik  (talk • contrib) 03:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Erik, if it's too late for catering, we could always order pizza at the last moment. It looks like I will need to compose my support justification.--Dan Dassow (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pizza sounds like a great Plan B? But if we get pizza, we have to get the cheese bread. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to follow The Purple One ! Sorry for the delay. I added my blurb; once you complete the questions, we have to change the date to +7 days, and then transclude. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, both of you! Done and done. Steve  T • C 08:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh My Gosh! This is going to be fun !!!! I'm glad I overslept and got to come along late and read all that silliness ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not too much fun, I hope! A nice, unobtrusive, uncontroversial RfA would suit me just fine. :-) Oh, and while you're here, I'll take advantage of the opportunity to pick your brain, if you don't mind? From a WP:MED perspective, does this guy seem notable? Steve  T • C 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good enough for me (I've seen articles survive on lower quality RSs) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look; I was borderline on his notability, as one of the sources says explicitly that not a lot has been written about him. I'll shift it over to the mainspace once I've included more from the RCP obituary and added the inline citations. All the best, Steve  T • C 17:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on joining the WP:100 club! :) — Erik (talk • contrib) 21:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, thanks. I must admit to having not read that before ... what an odd page to have! Steve  T • C 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There you have it ... I waited all night and all day so I could be #100, went out for a vanity update (manicure), and missed it!! One of these days I'll be #100 on one of my noms ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew as soon as I saw it you'd be pissed at that. :-) Steve  T • C 22:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was gunning for it also, but I was going to put "" -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL ... well, at least my fingernails look good ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, SandyGeorgia, your fingernails DO look stunning. <*** Wink ***> More to the point, with two more days for Steve's RfA, I wonder how many votes Steve will get.--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking and referencing
I think you might be sharing similar thoughts to me about overlinking in the lead section and the film infobox. At Alien vs. Predator (film), I conceded to IllaZilla's WP:EGG argument about excluding the piped Cinema of the United States link from the infobox. Not quite sure about concession for items in the lead section... the nationality of the film, the year of the film, and the genre of the film all seem relevant, so all should be linked or all shouldn't be linked. As for the infobox, I want to think of a better label than "Country" so we can link to "Cinema of COUNTRY" without WP:EGG grief. What do you think?

Also, in regard to another kind of formatting issue, what is your opinion of Notes/References/Bibliography, especially as a FA reviewer? See User:Erik/Sandbox for what I mean. WP:CITE seems to say that "Bibliography" shouldn't be used in the way we've used it, equating it with "Further reading". Yet I think some editors think "References" is better than "Notes"... I admit I've changed some headings from Notes to References because it sounds clearer. Thoughts on that as well? — Erik (talk • contrib) 20:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (TPS reply, feel free to ignore :P) I dunno about film articles in particular, but I've found that the default accepted title is "references". "Notes" are generally used in conjunction with "references" sections, i.e. to supplement short-form author, page-styled citations with full bibliographic information (e.g. Bone Wars). "Bibliography" probably shouldn't be used like "further reading" since they do mean different things, I think in part this is a remnant of the old days when inline citations weren't required and its meaning has since changed. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:CITE says, "Many editors prefer to reserve the section heading Bibliography for complete lists of published works in authors' biographies." That's why I've considered encouragement to phase it out.  Even if the heading is used in a film article, it could be taken to mean literary works related to the film.  Regarding "Notes" and "References", it is generally one or the other for film articles I've seen, though some editors have occasionally replaced "Notes" with "References".  I think this is because "Notes" comes off as a section heading for clarifications or minor points where it really is shorthand for "Footnotes".  "References" is more to the point, though the way it's used isn't in line with WP:CITE, where they should be significant sources of information.  For example, a newspaper article mentioning that filming started on July 27 isn't a reference as defined by WP:CITE.  I'm not looking to campaign for actively updating headings, but in updating the guidelines, I'd like to figure out what's most appropriate to suggest (and avoid saying that it's the only way one should cite). — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I ran into that issue with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, so I just threw the "notes" as in parenthetical stuff into "Annotations" and used the Notes/Ref dichotomy for the actual supporting citations. I'd say that References is the most straightforward and recommendable (is that a word?) approach for articles where it's a single section for references--it's the most easily understood scheme, and I'd say the notes/ref format is also best in adhering to printed scholarly nomenclature. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The EGG argument is a strong one for excluding piped "Cinema of... links from the infobox entirely, as the box doesn't easily lend itself to a piped solution that isn't convoluted as hell. Is there any great need to include it there? If you really do want to link to the article, one instance in the lead should be sufficient. For example, "Fight Club is a 1999 American film adapted from ..."—note that to overcome any potential EGG issues, the piped section should also encompass "film". Similarly, if you really want to link the "[year] in film" articles, the lead allows far greater scope than the infobox for producing creative EGG-compliant prose ("Fight Club is an American feature film adapted from the novel of the same name by Chuck Palahniuk. Released in 1999, it ...") I guess the same applies to genre, though the argument is weaker, as most people will know what a comedy film is; it isn't presenting the same kind of information as the previous two articles. In short, we should forget the infobox—it's probably overlinking in such close vicinity to the article body anyway—and include more thoughtful, targeted links in the lead paragraphs.
 * On naming the references section, there doesn't seem to be any best, accepted way, even at the sometimes-proscriptive WP:FAC. Looking at some of the last batch of new featured articles, The Bartered Bride uses Notes/Sources, Choral symphony goes for the similar Notes/Bibliography, Linezolid uses References, and Battle of Bosworth Field has References, with a Bibliography split into two sections by type (books and online sources). And I reckon I'm completely happy with leaving it to editor preference, as long as the setup is intuitive enough for the casual reader to grasp. Steve  T • C 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern is that worries about EGG links negatively affects the flow of writing. Like the "[year] in film" example you used in Fight Club, it seems to beget the question, why not just say "1999... film"?  I could understand the argument for de-linking genres since they are common names, but "Cinema of [country]" or "[year] in film" articles are not come across so easily.  Just trying to determine a way to make it work.  "See also" section the answer?  And regarding notes and references, you can read my response to David. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

American Beauty
What would you like to accomplish with American Beauty? There's a quite a bit more to accomplish with themes and interpretations, and I have some printouts to contribute a few sections. Seems like it'd warrant a sub-article eventually... want to push it to the limit? Seems like the "meat" of the critical reception section could use a rewrite. I also think that there's potential for the "Publicity" subsection... I saw a trade paper article (either Variety or The Hollywood Reporter) talking about how the studio was recognized for its successful campaign of the film by a publicity organization. — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be right that the themes and interpretations will warrant a sub-article at some point, though I'm hopeful that we can cover all the major points without doing that—there's some fat still to trim from the existing section, and several of the journal articles yet to implement cover similar ground to one another, whereas Fight Club seems to have provoked a more diverse analysis. In April, I paid for a couple of back articles from Creative Screenwriting from early 2000; if they're even half as good as the one I bought for use in Changeling, they'll still be solid gold for the "Writing" subsection. A pity the magazine isn't responding to my e-mails asking where the hell they are. :< Barring that, the "Critical reception" section is probably next on the to-do list; because of the wealth of material out there that retrospectively covered the critical consensus, it probably doesn't need to be half as long as Changelings. Steve'  T • C 07:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I didn't need to add the review from the Boston Globe after all. :) It's a good idea to find out the collective consensus via retrospective sources, but if they're not detailed enough (in what they appreciated, exactly), we may still need to illustrate parts of the consensus with individual reviews.  Also, I'm starting to think that the "Publicity" subsection is unnecessary... the campaign seems to be mostly for the awards.  So we may want to consider integrating "Publicity" into other parts of the article body.  (The prose I added to "Awards and honors" sure came off as devious, as if the film's quality was irrelevant!)  Let me know if you don't get Creative Screenwriting because I should have access to some major libraries here. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I found this on someone else's page, thought you might enjoy: AfD. — Erik (talk • contrib) 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the link, thanks. :-) On American Beauty, I meant that individual reviews will still need to form the bulk of the section, but that it needn't be as long or convoluted as the one at Changeling. Something approaching Fight Clubs should suffice. I've a couple of avenues yet to explore on getting the text of those articles, including e-mailing a plea direct to the guy who wrote them, Peter Chumo. :-) I don't know why I haven't received them yet; I'm sure Air Mail never used to take this long. Worst case scenario if they're not available is that I PayPal some cash over to a helpful American editor and ask him very politely if he'd be willing to purchase the issue and scan the relevant pages for me. Ahem. ;-) Steve'  T • C 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blargh, Soviet spies and such
Replied at Featured article candidates/George Koval/archive1. Thanks for the review! -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review again... by the way, 97 supports at my count, bet you'll be on WP:100 'efore long... -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
WP:104.  ceran  thor 23:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Steve  T • C 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to notify you of this, though it seems to be taken care of.  ceran  thor 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just sayin', I think you may be one of the best admin canidate I've ever seen. You don't even have an oppose vote. (Well, besides that one that seems to be a joke) Anyway, I just felt like dropping by and saying hi. Cheers, Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And how did you get your status thing? Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, many thanks for the comments, it's appreciated. To get a "status" indicator, create the following two subpages in your equivalent userspace: User:Steve/Status and User:Steve/StatusDiv and copy the wiki code from each, swapping out my username with yours. Then at the very top of your user and talk pages place . To change your status, all you then have to do is edit User:Abce2/Status to say ", or . Once you've done that a couple of times, you can use the handy link on your user or talk page that the transclusion creates (hover over the image) to see your last change of status; "undo" (or use Twinkle for a quicker revert) to the previous version to swap your status between "on" and "off". All the best,  Steve  T • C 07:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done, really think you'll make a great admin! All the best :)  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 09:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations! I have closed your RfA as successful.

On behalf of the community, thank you for submitting yourself to the trials of RfA and well done for coming through so well. Good luck with your new tools. You may find New admin school useful, but don't be shy to ask other admins (or Crats) for help if in doubt.

Particular congratulations for a unanimous result. We have high expectations now...

Well done and enjoy your mop. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC) --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, very well-deserved. You eventually get used to all the extra tabs! Regards, Woody (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NB I've amended WP:100. You're at position #92. Cheers, No. 122

Well done. Just don't bring our good name into disrepute. That's my job. --Stephen 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, congrats! Have fun. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes! It finally worked. Anyway, happy adminship! Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks a lot guys (and I use that word in its completely gender-neutral sense). I'll try to reward the faith shown in my ability to be bland and make no enemies temperament and likelihood not to screw things up by not pressing any of these buttons until I've read every inch of WP:NAS. All the best, Steve  T • C 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A bit late ... Congratulations, and in case you haven't seen it, you might be interested in the admin dashboard. The long list of articles in CAT:SD can be a bit daunting some days. All the best. Plastikspork (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Steve!!! All the best, ATC . Talk 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Steve! Implicit in voting strong support is moral support. Best of luck, may your journey as an admin be fruitful! --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Strategy
Hello. Wondered if you'd seen this? http://strategy.wikimedia.org Some interesting ideas. A tremendous time drain, mind. But could yield profound results. I'm going to get heavily involved, I think. I have raised an idea here about making Wikipedia editing more palpably rewarding. Interested to know what you think of it. --bodnotbod (talk)


 * Those are some interesting ideas you've had there Bod, but there are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. On the one hand, raising the public profile of editors, celebrating the position so it's something that we'd be proud to put on our CVs might attract those with something useful to contribute and make the rest of us raise our games. On the other hand, there are some ... big personalities here, and raising the profile of editors is almost certain to raise the levels of navel-gazing and DRAMA—and I don't think anyone disagrees that we have quite enough of both, thank-you-very-much. I'll think on it further. Cheers, Steve  T • C 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, you might find this article interesting, obviously written by someone without the slightest clue. He can't even get the definitions of inclusionist and deletionist right—and they form the spine of his argument. Wonderful leaps of logic too, especially the one he uses to reach the conclusion that "From the numbers, it looks as though Wikipedia is stagnating." Sigh. Steve  T • C 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I'd seen that article. On one of the WP mailing lists it's been reported that the BBC want to talk to a confirmed deletionist. I'm not sure what they're up to there. The people on the mailing list seem to agree that the deletionist/inclusionist debate has long since stopped being a central issue for Wikipedia. Interested to see what you contribute to strategy. As you may have seen from BEMLi, I've undubdibed. I'm going to have to reduce my typing. But what typing I still have left in me I hope to devote to the strategy wiki. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Film article that needs watching

 * Autism Every Day. Boo!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted; I'll keep an eye on the ... spirited ... talk page discussion and do some added cleanup later on. Cheers, Steve  T • C 08:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Puff piece"
It's one idiot from the Los Angeles Times as opposed to the majority of film and animation historians, including Quentin Tarantino, who thought that the book was fantastic. The article is clearly one of the best on Wikipedia. Opposing its FAC is a huge mistake. The article failed several FACs without the use of that book, and it will pass with or without your support. The comments you have written are absolute nonsense! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Have you ever read this Ibaranoff24? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ibaranoff, I said, "we need to be sure we're not just parroting a puff piece", which doesn't mean I want the source to be removed, just our use of it examined to ensure it's fairly representing Bakshi's career instead of blaming his films' failings on anything other than the man himself every time. I don't hold the LA Times article up as the final arbiter of the book's reliability—it's just an opinion that needs to be considered, especially as there are some discrepancies; for example, newspaper articles from the period that tell us certain of his films were financial disappointments or failures, despite Unfiltereds assertion that they were not. Trust me when I say that I want to see this article be the best it can be; I wouldn't have spent so long helping out over there otherwise—even to the extent of going through DocKino's initial list of issues one-by-one to resolve or rebut them while you ignored him. If there are reliable sources that contradict the LA Times, by all means let's see them, and maybe we can resolve this without resorting to comments like "Opposing the FAC of what is clearly one of the best articles on Wikipedia is one of the biggest mistakes you will ever make on here." You have the choice between engaging with the issues in a mature way or becoming a drama-monger like so many others. Let me know when you've decided. Steve'  T • C 07:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I toned down the parts on American Pop and Fire and Ice. I disagree on the comments about the book being less of a biography. It is cataloged as a biography in my local library, and there is a lot of biographical information within the book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Replied on FAC page. Steve  T • C 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Added Jerry Beck's book as a citation to help back up the statements about the financial success of Wizards and American Pop. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Comment
It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Good job! MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)