User talk:Supernumerary/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WikiFilmsProject Javascript
Hey. I notice you doing tagging film articles. I created a script: here that makes it easier. Check it out. Shane (talk/contrib) 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! How exactly do I use? Sorry, but I'm still new. Supernumerary 23:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Copy evervything from that file to User:Supernumerary/monobook.js (if this is the skin you are using or change it). You don't need

import_external('User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js'); import_external('User:Lightdarkness/aiv.js');
 * So just delete them. Save and do a hard refresh. Taging is done from the "article" page. Sometimes it works and dome times it doesn't. If it doesn't, you just have to do it manually. I does not add the tag yet... only modifyies it. Shane (talk/contrib) 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagging Films
When tagging films that have not yet been released, please use the "Future" class - thanks. --Esn 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I Am Legend
I've removed the FilmsWikiProject tag on I Am Legend, because there's already a tag on the movie article at I Am Legend (film). Didn't seem to make sense to leave the tag on the book's article. Fan-1967 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put the tag back on it because the book's article has a section about two earlier film adaptations, and both adaptations do not have their own pages yet. Also this is the way I've handled many other articles that combine both the novel and film.--Supernumerary 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, they both do have their own articles, but still it should be tagged so that we know it's out there. Eventually it should be split.--Supernumerary 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm confused, if all three films are tagged, as to why you'd want to tag the book, but I'll leave you to it. Fan-1967 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to make it clear. The way I see it is this. I've come across many book articles that mention the book's film adaptations. Some of these adaptations have their own pages, others don't. It's pretty clear-cut that if there is no other article about the film adaptation that the only mention of it should be tagged. However, if there is an article about the film adapatations, there are no guidelines that I could find. Since I started off leaving the tags on, I've decided that I should continue in the same way. It's the same thing with plays and their adaptations as well as actors, actresses, and directors where their articles aren't about specific films but are still clearly film related. I hope this helps, but if you are still confused ,I don't think it would be bad to ask about this at the project talk page. Personally, I think that book and film articles should always be split and a simple "see here for info on the adaptations" link should be made (if the film article is more than a stub). I hope this helps.--Supernumerary 03:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging
It's quite funny, both of us are trying to tag the L section of the Unassessed film articles, so whenever I try to add something you've already added it and vice versa. Cbrown1023 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea (your proposal: I just thought of a way to solve this. I'll switch out all the done sections on the project page and let people sign up for the remaining sections. That will also show people that we're getting close). Cbrown1023 03:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I found a problem with your plan, it is not major, but it is going to happen and I don't want you to think I'm just ignoring your plan.... Since I'm working on a section after yours, whatever I grade automatically goes into your section when the robot tallies it. Just so you know, I'll just add my name to your section also, that way you won't think I'm stepping on your toes... Cbrown1023 01:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What are your criteria?
I sometimes find myself confused regarding your reasons for your tagging a film a certain way, and since you're probably tagging more films than anyone else right now I'd like to know what criteria you use for your decisions. What's the minimum amount of information that you think needs to be present for a film to be Start-class, and B-class? Also, I noticed that you removed the FilmsWikiProject tag from Mystical Adventure, and I'd like to know why. Are made-for-tv films not within the scope of the project? Esn 03:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you ad a film stub to the Moonfleet article which is about the book not the film? It would be better to start a second article about the film if it is notable enough. Dabbler 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Salvation Army Filmography
Hi there - you added the classification NA to this article - I looked at the Assessment Guide and cannot find NA - can you please tell me what this means? Many thanks Rhyddfrydol 09:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Section 25
I saw that you were working on Section 25 ( THE FINAL SECTION, YAY!!! Aww... nvm) so I signed you and I up for it... you can remove your name if you want... I just wanted to make sure you had credit also. Cbrown1023 02:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

New Template Ratings
Thanks, but make sure you use class=Disambig not class=Dab for the class rating. Cbrown1023 02:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Biography Film articles
What do you think about bigoraphical film articles? I've been removing them because the banner says it is about articles related to films, but I was wondering what your policy is. Cbrown1023 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What about articles related to film characters? I've had a question about that... My policy is to remove them, but that may need to be changed... I think it probably works either way, but will change that dependent upon which you do. Basically, what about film characters? Cbrown1023 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I aggree, we should adress that on the talk page or just write up a scope on the page and allow members to make changes by stating that on the talk page. Cbrown1023 00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Character
This probably sucks, but I'm adding the characters from lists that I find using AWB. They're gonna make the Category:Unassessed film articles bigger :(, but they belong in our project... Cbrown1023 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks in advance (I've seen you've already done it) for helping me remove un-film-related characters becuase when you add a ton of them, so get mixed added by accident. I know it's going to be easy to do though, but tedious. Cbrown1023

Dude: Do you live in the US?
Do you live in the west coast of the U.S. or something, cause every time I see you edit it's like 12:00 AM! (on the east coast of the US) Cbrown1023 03:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you have a lot to do, and yet you still find time to contribute greatly to Wikipedia. I'm impressed. Cbrown1023 01:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Strangelove
Hi Supernumerary, I found two parts in the Plot, which I don't think belong there, but somewhere in a section on historical parallels. But I am not sure if in the film's dialogues they are mentioned. If you are familiar enough with the script, please look in the film's Talk page and let me know. By the way I have put the collaboration template on the article page and even suggested next week's title. Hoverfish 00:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Hoverfish 09:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The character of Dr. Strangelove
Hi,

I was just doing some work on the "themes" section, specifically "Use of ex-Nazis in government", and thinking that, since it's all about Dr. Strangelove anyway, it might be better incorporated into the Strangelove character analysis. It turns out that you were concurrently merging two other sections dealing with much the same subject matter. The stuff about the glove, particularly, under "ex-Nazis in government" is really just repetition. Could you take a look at the treatment under themes, and see if you think it should be similarly merged? The themes section needs a serious overhaul anyway.... TheMadBaron 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Salomé (film)
In Category talk:English-language films you linked to Salomé (film), which redirects to the 1923 version. I have here a red link on the 1913 italian silent film. Since there is no film article, shouldn't the redirect link to the disambiguation? Hoverfish 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) It was a typo and it's about the 1918 version, which exists. If you were refering to the '24 film, I can change your link to Salomé (1923 film) and simply turn the redirect to the disambiguation (there are no other what-link-here's). There are lots of film versions that may appear as articles. Hoverfish 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) I spotted the italian now, it's a 1910 film.

Ew exams...
Ew... you have exams... good luck and happy studying (mine aren't for a couple of months). Cbrown1023 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Svankmajer.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Svankmajer.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  06:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

But I'm A Cheerleader
There were two problems with your edit:


 * firstly, it was soundly POV, giving your own impressions about the film front-and-centre treatment
 * secondly, the changes to the plot made the text of the article worse, rather poorly attempting to cover the satirical elements of the plot and including statements that were a bit dubious

For those reasons, I reverted the changes. Rebecca 05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That edit was basically fine. I still take issue with the RottenTomatoes sentence, as it seemed to be quoting one person's impressions as being fact, although the rating could probably be fitted in somewhere. Nice reworking. :) Rebecca 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Manos" The Hands of Fate
Did some work. Does it look better? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez |  (Complain here) 15:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Current collaboration
Just switched to the current COTW. Hoverfish 01:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Super, way to go on the production section! I'm reading it and want to help with copyedit and I have a few questions. I'll be making edits and leaving questions for you here as they arise: I'm not sure if you mean to use "as well" in the "in addition to" sense or "as good as" sense. Do you mean to say that Hitchcock wanted to outdo tFH in addition to Castle and Corman, or that Hitchcock wanted to outdo Castle and Corman as well as tFH had done? My recollection of the film is rusty, but does this mean that there was no earring found in the bathroom in Stefano's screenplay and only a piece of paper instead?
 * Hitchcock had seen many B-movies churned out by William Castle and Roger Corman that, while panned by critics, had nonetheless cleaned up at the box office and was interested in outdoing them as well as "the French Hitchcock".
 * Stefano changed Marion's telltale earring found in the bathroom after her death to a scrap of paper in the toilet.

Hondo 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Films Newsletter
Please check out the newsletter at WikiProject Films/Outreach/November 2006 Newsletter. I'd appreciate correct any mistakes and (above all) adding information to it. Thanks. :) Cbrown1023 02:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's not a list, but we should keep up a list... on the main project page. The only way I can think of is to look at the categories: Category:FA-Class film articles, Category:A-Class film articles, and Category:GA-Class film articles and see on the individual articles when they were assessed... we really should keep up a list! Cbrown1023 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Psycho refs
Just wondering, would it be possible for you to use Template:Cite book to cite Janet Leigh's Psycho book? The way it's currently referenced is not quite meeting WP:CITE guidelines. Thanks, Green451 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It looks great now. Green451 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The November 2006 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. Cbrown1023 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FA/GA Listing
Is this what you had in mind? Cbrown1023 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do you think is the best place to put this list? In Assessment (where it is), in Style, in some other Department (as seen in the sidebar), or in a new department, like Spotlight? Cbrown1023 01:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Arbogast footage contradiction
Sorry it took me a bit to get back to you, but I had to dig up a few things in the Truffaut book. Here is the complete, unexpurgiated excerpt:


 * Francois Truffaut: ...I understand that in addition to the main titles, Saul Bass also did some sketches for the picture.


 * Alfred Hitchcock: He did only one scene, but I didn't use his montage. He was supposed to do the titles, but since he was interested in the picture, I let him lay out the sequence of the detective going up the stairs just before he is stabbed.  One day during the shooting I came down with a temperature, and since I couldn't come to the studio, I told the cameraman and my assistant that they could use Saul Bass's drawinngs.  Only the part showing him going up the stairs, before the killing.  There was a shot of his hand on the rail, and of feet seen in profile, going up through the bars of the balustrade.  When I looked at the rushes of the scene, I found it was no good, and that was an interesting revelation for me, because as that sequence was cut, it wasn't an innocent person but a sinister man who was going up those stairs.  Those cuts would have been perfectly all right if they were showing a killer, but they were in conflict with the whole spirit of the scene.

I typed that very fast, so there may be a few spelling errors there. The last part of Hitchcock's response seemed a bit confusing to be, so after a bit of thought, I came to the following interpretation:

When Hitchcock saw the rushes of the scene, the shots-

Wait, hold the phone! I just had a major revelation! When Hitchcock says "as that sequence was cut", I took it to mean "as that sequence was removed". But he could be saying cut as in "as that sequence was edited"! Which would make sense considering what Green said in Leigh's book.

Okay, so that needs to be fixed, but I think the (correct) version would make an interesting tidbit which should be kept in the article, if that's all right with you. Green451 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

CineVoter
Cbrown1023 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Job on GA!
Good job on improving Ginger Snaps to GA, keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good job! Congrats! I would've told you earlier but I just got back from babysitting... it's like 1:00 here... :) Cbrown1023 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The December 2006 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. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations
Thanksn for the congratulations and then kind words! If you ever need help with anything administrator-ly, just drop me a line and I'll come as soon as I can. :) If you celebrate it, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Cbrown1023 22:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Black Book
Thank you for your encouragements on Talk:Black Book (film). Taking into account your remarks about the fair use rationales, I also want to improve several sections of the article before having it peer reviewed, such as 'Commercial success' and 'Behind the story'. The second one is a bit tricky since the critics sometimes have a different opinion from the makers, and it would overlap the 'Critics' section. Since such overlap will occur more often in film articles, do you have any tips for this one? Best regards, Ilse@ 15:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help. I was able to use most of your remarks in the peer review and I nominated the article for the GA-class. - Ilse@ 13:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Retrieved notices!
Supernumerary,

How do you add those retrieved notices on the reference links?

Please respond on my disscussion page.
 * Al Fecund 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot of Pulp Fiction- Do you think it should be shorten further to 900 words
Dear Supernumerary,

Thanks for the citing sources link. I'll check into it later. By the way, since we seem to both be interested in Pulp Fiction (film), let me ask you this: Do you think the plot should be shorten even further to 900 words? I read that plot synopses should be 400 to 700 words, 900 max. What do you think?


 * Al Fecund 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What if the citation can be found in IMDB?
Dear Supernumerary,

I've been running into an unusual pattern in editing film articles recently. Often I'd find a piece of information on a Wikipedia page that needs a "citation needed", only to find that the information can be found if one looks further into the IMDb link to the given movie. Should I include a reference not for the "citation needed" that points more directly to the citation, or should I just delete it if the regular link is there for the film's IMDB page?


 * Al Fecund 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation
It would help me to know your opinion on the plot of The Favour, the Watch and the Very Big Fish. It's supposedly taken from a novel by Marcel Aymé, but it must be from one of his short stories. The grammar is lousy, but I'm mostly concerned on its "length", which actually means its effectiveness. If it had first a short synopsis and then what I managed to write there, would it be an improvement? However set aside, this film is a little mastepiece and I would like to make this somehow evident, probably not from the plot. Hoverfish Talk 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and the copy-edit. It's the best New Years gift I could expect. I demoted my babelboxes a bit to reflect the actual quality of my prose contributions. Hoverfish Talk 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)