User talk:Wool Mintons

Categories for The Hucksters
I'm so surprised there isnt a "Films about advertising" category, but there isn't. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You could always create one; would it go under Category:Films about the media? I can only think of a few films offhand that are actually about advertising (Maybe Lover Come Back, What Women Want and Logorama for starters, along with The Hucksters?) and not just having the main character in the advertising field but not really doing any creative. Wool Mintons (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd add Crazy People, Nothing In Common and Face In the Crowd... if you concur, I'll do it... tomorrow. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. And the more I think about it, the more films I can add to the category, aha!! Wool Mintons (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wool Mintons, I'm a little embarrassed to reveal I'm befuddled/overwhelmed/daunted starting this cat. If you have a moment, and the inclination, any chance you could do just the barebones minimum to get me pointed right, then I'll do the legwork from there? I'd also nominate The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, Quadrophenia and Lumet's Power, because the agency life is almost a character that steers these protagonists. Is it bad form if I enter the cats in the films' articles before the cat file itself actually exists? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ta-da!. And I think it's fine to add the cats before if the category is created within a short time of them being added. Wool Mintons (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very, very much. Your Ta-da! has me feeling like Rain Man when Charlie Babbitt shows him the pancake syrup. I'm gonna go put our new cat into some of the aforementioned titles. Thanks again! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Esther Williams
Hi. I reverted you on Ester Williams because you cut a whole lot more than the sorting. Turning off sorting can be done by simply removing the word "sortable" from the class attribute. And 25 is plenty to warrant sorting. The other stuff was about poor markup practices such as the use of rowspans, and embedded markup to style things. rowspans confuse editors continuously and are a major source of structural errors. They are also an impediment to accessibility to people who might be using a screen reader. Tables with spans make no sense to those people. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You never answered my question. How could sorting possibly help anyone with her filmography? How is it, as you put it in the edit summary, "useful", in this case? It was already in chronological order. Filmographies on other sites (TCM database, Esther Williams's own Web site, among others) are in chronological (or reverse chronological) order. And now that you've changed the NOTES column to be sortable as well, it gives no context as to who those people are. Rowspans in this case shouldn't prove any trouble to editors, as this is her ENTIRE FILMOGRAPHY as of now; they shouldn't be adding anything to the earlier portion. Rowspans are a common part of Wikipedia articles. List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men is a featured list, and it's got rowspans everywhere. Take a look at half of WP:Featured lists, they're tables filled with rowspans, and, for the most part, they're not sortable (unless it actually IS useful to use sorting, such as with, for instance, List of tallest buildings in Atlanta, where the various columns are meaningful.) Filmographies shouldn't be any different - they're lists! Discographies utilize rowspans, grouping albums and singles from the same year in the same year rowspan. And the table included font-size, etc. because when it was made, 9 months ago, that was the table template. Wool Mintons (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, sorting allows users to sort as they see fit; mebbe they would like to sort the recent stuff to the top, or would like to sort by the film title. Sorting is a feature that's been asked for for years and we should offer it a lot. I only did the notes column because it's being used for co-star. Those names could be made sortable by last name using sortname. I'm ambivalent on that field, really, it was just illustrative. There's been a huge volume of talk talk about these issues, this year. Two RfCs. The font-size was the first to go. There are thousands of such tables about and they all got off on the wrong foot. Interesting that you mention that filmographies are list; yup, they are, and too many are encumbered with heaps of table markup, instead of being done as true lists.
 * You know User:Rossrs? He'd be a good one to also talk with. Rowspans are not just an impediment to editing, and even there, tables are still edited, Director columns, added; it's a wiki, the articles are not set in stone. The real issue is about accessibility to people with vision disabilities, and pieces of software accessing the data; they get tripped-up by rowspans. The overarching issue is about clotting up wiki-text with stuff that's not wiki-text; rowspan is part of HTML, not wiki markup. This is why you can use |- instead of.
 * I looked at the history of the page and see that you've made a lot of edits, so I can understand you're feeling that a new editor barged in, but that, too, is part of collaborative editing. I'm cranking though a lot of pages doing a lot of clean-up. Did you see how I fixed the usages of ? You need to specify the year, as well as the last name, and the cite's need to have  in them. This allows users to click the footnote and be taken to the actual cite in the section below.
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely understand that there are still viewing accessibility issues, however, I only meant that this article on a washed up (wordplay!) MGM star isn't going to be the biggest of problems when someone with a screen reader is trying to view pages on Wiki. I think the accessibility issue is more important that the removal of rowspan allowing for sorting. Thank you for the help with Sfn. I completely forgot to include the year. I also didn't see it mentioned with the recent peer review, or I would have fixed it.
 * I've typically stayed away from filmography discussions; I feel that they should reflect the actor's performance in the film, and not include director, genre (especially since they can get long, like musical romantic comedy?), even co-stars (I merely added them to Williams's page as she never (and likely will never) win any major awards and the table looked really, really bare without it). Also, her film A Guy Named Joe is listed first when titles are sorted, even though it should be sorted with the Gs; how could that be fixed with the current table sorting? And looking through her autobiography, she doesn't mention the name of her character in The Magic Fountain, so sorting for that isn't any help. I'm all for making wikipedia better, but looking at the discussion on WP:ACTOR about filmography tables, most people seem focused on the darn color issue, and only a few are voicing mostly polar opinions concerning the actual rowspan/sorting issue. (And no, I haven't searched through your talk archives about the rowspan issue yet, but I will...tomorrow...ish) Wool Mintons (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been put off by all the Aqua Queen stuff since a trip to a water garden thing, as a kid.
 * I'm a professional developer, including web development. I've done the table nesting and spanning a lot. That was the 90s. I see ↓ that you've experience in this area and get most of this. Most wiki editors simply look at appearance and are unaware of much else. But structure matters for reasons that may not be obvious. I've argued that filmographies should be formatted as lists, and many are, per, MOS: WP:Filmographies. A few love tables, though. Too many actor bios are little more than a heap of table markup with the content all but lost in the code. I work on a vary wide range of topics on wp and see it as a database development effort; we're building content and structure and setting good patterns is useful. The title sorting could be done rather easily, as Rossrs comments. I did this for the director names in Samuel L. Jackson filmography. Most of my talk on filmographies is in the wt:ACTOR archive 5; the RfC. Ya, too much guff about teh blue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack mentioned to me that I might be able to explain better the issue with accessibility as I do work with visually-impaired users. The main problem with rowspans from that point of view is that folks who have limited vision (but are not blind) often highlight a line of text, and use their screen-reader to read it out to them. If you consider this diff, and focus on Easy to Wed, you'll find that there's no way to get the whole line (including the date) highlighted and read out, since the date is textually only a part of the previous line, The Hoodlum Saint. I understand the visual attraction of having a rowspan, and the screen-reader problem does not affect a large proportion of the readership, but I still think that making things as easy as possible for those who have impairments is a goal well-worth considering when we produce articles – even if Featured Articles have not done so in the past. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I've done work in the past with Web design and the visually-impaired, so I understand that the rowspan issue makes it impossible for these tables to be of any use to them. I also understand that there are, as Jack said, thousands of these tables in many different Wiki Projects, so an overhaul in the MOS including the accessibility explanation should probably be seriously looked at. Thank you for the explanation, though! Wool Mintons (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack mentioned this to me also. The sortability of A Guy Named Joe (and there's also a few film titles that begin with "The") could be achieved by using sortname - A Guy Named Joe .    I guess "useful" is in the eye of the beholder.  I can see use for it in some instances.  Rather than "useful" I think it's fairer to say "more versatile".  The sortability can be ignored by anyone who doesn't want to use it but anyone who wishes to use it, can.   I see genres as a minefield of POV, because various films overlap and who gets to choose which labels to attach to it?  There's so much nonsense and debate of genres as applied to musicians (in infoboxes, not tables), and the last thing I'd want to see is the same thing happen with film genres.  You mention co-stars, directors, and I'll add one - studios - that are all fields that are used in some filmographies. John Wayne filmography (1926–1940) comes to mind.  I think these columns make the table overly detailed if it's used in the article, but may be appropriate when the filmography is split off into its own article, as it's reasonable to expect that to be more "complete".   You, Jack and RexxS have discussed this from an accessibility standpoint, and I don't have anything to add to that, except to point out that a huge number of editors would not even give that a second thought, and that a lot of people who add rowspans with good intentions, would be unaware how that impacts on visually-impaired editors.  Perhaps an MOS overhaul would also serve to educate people in this regard.  Rossrs (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention moving references. See this diff. I started moving references out of the prose and into the references section. This is about de-cluttering the body of the article and expanding the cite templates to their full form with moar fields filled-in. It's another newer feature; see: WP:CITE. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Holy crikeys, I had no idea those existed (obviously). It actually makes the references a heck of a lot easier to work with, since there isn't a cite template jumbled about in the middle of the article. Well, I guess I'm going to spend the next few days changing my refs, sigh. Thank you! Wool Mintons (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I love that extension as well. I made a page User:RexxS/Cite multiple pages some time ago to illustrate harvnb (of which sfn is a variant), and I've now updated it to demonstrate defined references, so you can look there (or ask either of us) if you get lost. Decompression sickness is my latest effort with fully defined refs, if you want to see how nice the feature is on a large article. --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I had seen your subpage; it's linked from the doc. I'll look at to see what I can learn from Decompression sickness (other than to listen to the nice dive instructors on Gili Trawangan). Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've push some along, elsewhere, too: Fiesta (1947 film). I've been doing a lot of this. The endless one is Greta Garbo. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Accessibility

User talk:RexxS
 * User:RexxS/Accessibility and the related discussion at:

I've been having a discussion with RexxS, which has produced the above demonstration. I'd like to have a discussion over the next few days about this with an eye towards taking this to the appropriate MOS pages. I'm thinking User talk:RexxS/Accessibility would be a good place to start. Also, I did the sortname tweak to the Williams page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter
The July 2010 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) 06:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS August 2010 Newsletter
The August 2010 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) 03:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open
The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about Post on Feature Film Wiki you edited: Another Harvest Moon
Hi Lauren, You edited the wiki page for Another Harvest Moon, the feature film. I am the co-producer of Another Harvest Moon, and am unfortunately not wiki savvy like you are. I edited the page to add my credit, but the change does not show up. What did I do wrong? Thanks so much for your input!Rodneyholland (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Rodney Holland

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter
The September 2010 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) 04:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter
The Octoberr 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Annie Hall genre
Thanks for watching over Annie Hall. I've had some experience with editors doing peculiar things with genre designations, so that informed my snap judgment. (Nothing personal.) For my information, is it customary to only list a film's most specific genre category? I never observed that but I wasn't thinking about it, either. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I go by the example under WP:FILMCAT for most specific categories. 1970s romantic comedy films is part of romantic comedy films, which is listed under both romance AND comedy films, so it doesn't need to be in the others. Wool Mintons (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter
The November 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter
The December 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:American films
My bad, sorry! (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter
The January 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter
The February 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, just saw your film-related contributions and just wanted to tell you to keep up the good work. :) If you have any questions about film articles, feel free to contact me! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 01:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem?
Love Me Tonight is a musical comedy film made in 1932. Musical comedies are musicals, film or otherwise, and films made in 1932 are 1930s films, so Love Me Tonight is obviously a 1930s musical film. Why in the world did you delete Category:1930s musical films from its parent list? &mdash;Coder Dan (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Love Me Tonight is a 1932 musical comedy film, which means that it should be in the musical comedy film category. Much like how a 1930s romantic comedy film isn't placed in both 1930s romance films and 1930s comedy films, but in 1930s romantic comedy films. IMDB describes it as both "musical" and "comedy," as does the TCM database, and the first sentence of the article describes it so as well. I really don't understand what's confusing. And please don't be so hostile. Wool Mintons (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Lauren, I'll try to say this as civilly as possible, but you have no idea what you're doing. The only reason  and  aren't listed as parents of 1930s romantic comedy films is that  is a child of both "1930s romance films" and "1930s comedy films", so any film with "1930s romantic comedy films" listed as a parent automatically has "1930s romance films" and "1930s comedy films" as grandparents.  I created, so the argument is moot now, but please learn how the category system works before trying to organize it.  As you quoted from IMDb, Love Me Tonight is both a musical and a comedy, as are all musical comedies, so it needs to be in both all applicable musical hierarchies and all applicable comedy hierarchies.  You can't just remove the film from the "1930s musical films" hierarchy altogether! &mdash;Coder Dan (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of parent and subcategories, as you dragged me over to the main talk page for categorization just last year. WP:FILM follows most specific cat. This applies for not only placing a film into a decade-genre category when the parent genre category has gotten too large and could be broken down, but also placing it the appropriate category when an intersect occurs. It is both a musical and a comedy, which means that musical comedy films would have been most specific (until you created the new category). It is not solely a musical, nor solely a comedy. It was not appropriate to apply a subcat (1930s musical films) of a cat (musical films) that doesn't entirely describe the film! It would be placed in MUSICAL COMEDY FILMS, which is a subcategory of both musical films AND comedy films. Go look at WP:FILMCAT. Leaving 1930s musical films is the equivalent of having it in both musical films and musical comedy films. The romantic comedy category was previously the only intersect that had been broken down by decades. If the individual decades did not exist, then the films would have been categorized only under romantic comedy films. The same rule applies; it wouldn't have been placed in a decade romance film category or decade comedy film category because they would not have been most specific and properly described the film. Wool Mintons (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * > I'm well aware of parent and subcategories
 * No, Lauren, you're not. You have a fundamental misconception about what parents and subcategories are.  A subcategory can be found from a parent by following links in the parent's Subcategories section, and the parent can be found by following links in the subcategory's Categories box. "Musical comedy films" is not connected through a straight chain of parent/subcategory links to "1930s musical films", "1930s comedy films", or any subcategory of, so it's not a subcategory of "1930s musical films" or "1930s comedy films".  If you still don't understand this, then please ask someone to explain it to you.  No category that contains films from all decades can possibly be a subcategory of categories that contain only films from the 1930s.  &mdash;Coder Dan (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please go back and read what I wrote, and stop being condescending. I NEVER wrote that MCF is a subcategory of 1930s musical films. What in the world would lead you to think I wrote that? As I wrote before, "MUSICAL COMEDY FILMS...is a subcategory of both musical films AND comedy films". Never did I say it was a subcategory of 1930s musical films or 1930s comedy films. Please go back and read my comment before trying to argue about a completely different topic. After doing that, if you still feel like arguing about it, take it up at WP:FILM, because obviously both of us believe we're correct, and I really don't feel like getting into this again with you here. Wool Mintons (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * > I NEVER wrote that MCF is a subcategory of 1930s musical films.
 * Then what in the world would lead you to think replacing 1930s musical films with MCF is a valid edit? Most specific categories applies only to subcategories:
 * > articles and categories should not be placed directly in a "parent" category if they are already present in one of its sub-categories.
 * And intersection categories are subcategories by definition:
 * > combinations of multiple categories can be made explicit by creating an "intersection" sub-category
 * &mdash;Coder Dan (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction:
 * I apologize for misreading your comment, but your arguments just didn't make sense to me. Were you trying to say that Love Me Tonight doesn't really count as a musical film?  I guess some of your arguments are reasonable based on that assumption, but where in the world would you get that idea, and why in the world did you keep arguing in terms of the guidelines?  The guidelines have nothing to do with whether or not LMT is a musical film, and it obviously is one.  It even says so on IMDb and the film's theatrical poster.  &mdash;Coder Dan (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Where have I said it was not a musical? I have stated repeatedly that is a musical comedy film. You AND I have both pointed out that musical comedy films a subcategory of musical films. Your first sentence in this discussion says so. We both understand subcategories inherit the trait(?descriptor?category topic?) of the parent category. You once again did not read my comments. Everyone in the world knows that musical comedy films are musical films (as they are comedy films), and I never once have tried to say that they were not. IMDB lists it as both a comedy and a musical. So does the TCM database. So does the first sentence of the article. I don't understand why you keep trying to say that I am arguing in terms of guidelines when I am actually try to argue in terms of common sense. The intersect of musical films and comedy films, musical comedy films, previously categorized this film best, and with the creation of the new category, 1930s musical comedy films, it has an even better category for it. Wool Mintons (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * > musical comedy films previously categorized this film best
 * No it didn't. When you made your edit, "1930s musical films" was the best categorization of the film based on its release date and musical content.  There's no common sense in deleting the only 1930s category for a film made in the 1930s, only to replace it with a category that contains films from all decades.  If that's your idea of common sense, then your "common sense" isn't working.  WP:CAT says "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." Any 1930s musical comedy film belongs in "1930s musical films" just as logically as it belongs in "Musical comedy films", and when you made your edit, "1930s musical films" was the most specific category in its branch.  So deleting "1930s musical films" violated WP:CAT.  If you really have been basing your decisions on "common sense", then (a) you need to stop doing that, (b) you shouldn't have wasted both our time and our mutual goodwill by using Most specific categories and Intersection categories as excuses, and (c) you should read and follow WP:CAT more carefully.  &mdash;Coder Dan (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made my final response to you here in regards to this. As you continue to be insulting, condescending, and ignorant of what I have written, and as there is no way for me to further explain my thoughts on the matter, please take your issue over to WP:FILM. As we both believe we are correct, and I don't feel like falling for your bait anymore, only the admins and the project members can resolve this. I hope you have a nice day. Goodbye. Wool Mintons (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not bait, WM. You made a mistake, you refused to admit it, and now you've run out of excuses.  You're the one who's ignorant of what you've written.  Goodbye, and please stay away from the category system until you learn how it works.  &mdash;Coder Dan (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter
The March 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter
The April 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The silent enemy 1930 poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The silent enemy 1930 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter
The May 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:55, 2 June 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) 04:47, 2 July 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) 04:24, 2 August 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) 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election
Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter
The October 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) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FlirtationWalk.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FlirtationWalk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter
The  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. —Peppage (talk &#124; contribs) 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BillyRose&#39;sJumbo poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BillyRose&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter
The December 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. —Peppage (talk &#124; contribs) 22:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter
The January 2012 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.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE  X  00:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

1940s refs on Kathryn Grayson
In reading the article on Kathryn Grayson I was thrilled to see that someone over there is as fond as I am of digging up old articles in databases. After poring over the history, I determined that person might be you. Am I correct? If not, do you know who it is? Thanks in advance for your reply. Lawikitejana (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was apparently indeed me! In my editing of Esther William's page I came across many articles on Kathryn, so I worked on her page for a bit; However, since then I've lost my free library access to the LA Times digital archive so I'm not able to continue doing so! Wool Mintons (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Iloveyouagainposter.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Iloveyouagainposter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Cavalcade D'Amour /Cavalcade of Love
Hi I noticed you have updated the page on the above film. I am a university student in the UK and need to watch the film for research purposes for my dissertation but am unable to track it down. Can you help at all? Thank you Cavalcaded&#39;amour (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)cavacaded'amourCavalcaded&#39;amour (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Itakethiswomanswedish1931.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Itakethiswomanswedish1931.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Loy Powell Films
Template:Loy Powell Films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Eddy MacDonald films
Template:Eddy MacDonald films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Jupiter&#39;s Darling - Title Card.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jupiter&, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Wool Mintons! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  20:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Divorcee poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Divorcee poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)