![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
If I have a suggestion about the section it would be to recast the Rotten Tomatoes paragraph to account for the fact that the reviews it lists are taken from all throughout the last eleven years, including the period of its original release. This means that it doesn't support the fact that the film has been reappraised since the original, polarising, reaction, nor that it had one in the first place. The "Top Critics" section, however, with the exception of two from 2002, lists reviews exclusively from around the period of the film's release, and this may be a better page to cite, at least to support the fact that it split critics. However, to get around the first point, as Wikipedia does allow (despite WP:OR) simple calculations, I wonder if you couldn't just use RT's raw data to work out the score from reviews after 1999? As long as the calculation is detailed in a footnote of some kind, I don't think there'd be a problem when it (eventually!) comes to FAC. Steve T • C 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I've lost so much so much faith in the UK media for reporting like it's more than hope and dreams. After this and claiming Cher would be Catwoman, I've lost what little faith I had in the Telegraph (well, whatever faith I had). Funny old world, I know we wouldn't cite Rich Johnston for an article about the war in Iraq but we gotta give their ilk more credit in our guidelines really: they can smell the real nonsense. Still, I'm glad the wrong version just says "reported", but my faith in the wiki is still shaken by how the admins gave into an IP who always changed his address.
Anyway, are you aware of what the possibly changed ending is? Alientraveller ( talk) 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Was wondering if you could consult on this? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a little sparse isn't it? It looks ripe for some embiggening; I've some bookmarked Variety articles about it at home, I'll take a look later and see what can be incorporated. Do you think we should include any of that sh*t about those initial rumours of its being a new Dirty Harry film? Steve T • C 15:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Batman (1989 film)#Reliable Sources. Thanks. Wildroot ( talk) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey i nominated that article for deletion would you mind voting clicky. I could not find any reliable source if you found any add it. Thanks. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 05:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
My mother is a big fan of James Bond movies, and I'm not really sure what to expect. I'm very worried that this movie will either be too technical or too boring. And I won't make a video asking anyone else but you, since you're a movie professional. Well, by that I mean professional about movies, not making them. So tell me, is it all worth it? TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 13:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
See this discussion concerning moving my topic workshop draft into the project. Feel free to propose any potential topics you have in mind. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 07:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I came to Wikipedia for knowledge, but with all the vandalism going on I'm getting more random crap than useful information, and seeing the talk pages on pages like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington is like watching a never-ending documentary.
Wikipedia isn't serious anymore in my opinion, you're a smart person, and you're actually the only friend on Wikipedia I had true discussions with besides editing. So goodbye, it's time to leave before I get even further brainwashed by Wikipedia vandalism, it's bad enough to get brainwashed by television, movies and so on, I shouldn't be brainwashed by stupid remarks that can be found in vandalism.
I will miss you, Erik, you're truly a great guy. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 12:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
But I can't trust this site entirely, most news reporters live in a fantasy world, but instead of watching everything I want, I will only keep an eye on pages I wanna know more about at the moment. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 01:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
How can I avoid getting spam on my Wikipedia talk page? I hate the coordinator of the week program. Just because I'm a member of a WikiProject does not mean I'm interested in everything that's happening. Help would be really appreciated. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You are a movie researcher, and you know a lot about movies. That's why I'm asking for your help, the media told me that this is the movie that will get Halloween to be how it should be. But last year, I watched this movie BEFORE Halloween and this one on Halloween, I hated that movie, it was the reason Halloween last year was one of the crappiest Halloweens I ever had. (I can't remember any crappy Halloween when I was a kid, as I just got really open to the United States on my teen years)
Please help me out, I want the Halloween to turn out great, not crappy, and without your help, I could as well be watching a movie that sucks so bad I will regret it for the rest of my life. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 11:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
P. S. If you happen to know the best article for teen years do me a favor and change the redirect. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 11:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the AfD (a short one) and then tell me what your thoughts are on List of Timothy Asch films? I borrowed the "list from the Timothy Asch article, and then borrowed the content and sourcing from the 14 films on that list that already had their own seperate article. I certainly do not recommend this for other such lists, but in this case, the 14 other articles were quite stubby, and including their informations on one page made a lot of sense. My own thought is that those 14 other articles may be deleeted and set as redirects to the list or to Asch. If, however unlikley, one of the other films gets enough additiional information or coverage to grow bigger than waht bits were there, we might then consider giving it its own article. Your opinion would be most appreciated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've whipped up a template to provide a generic text description for these categories. Just add {{
WPFILMS Future-Class films to be released category header}}
and use the single parameter to specify either the year or month & year. Transclude rather than subst, so the text can be easily be edited. Regards.
PC78 (
talk) 18:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the updating of WP:FUTFILM has been a little neglected lately; for me it's simply been a matter of prioritising other tasks ahead of cleanup operations. Though it's good to see other editors, ones who I've never seen at WT:FILM, using WP:NFF in their AfDs, it shows it has the broad support of the community. I'd definitely be up for helping to create an essay based on all the arguments we've used/seen at these AfDs. I'll pull something together over the weekend if you want. Steve T • C 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, good sir, for removing the god-awful plot summary from the RocknRolla page. I salute your contribution. Plot summaries are generally a miserable waste of space. Some guy ( talk) 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I got all sorts of nagging minor things I need advise on:
Psst. I saw that edit to Fight Club yesterday, and was going to revert, but on a whim I checked the scene and Pitt does indeed say "shirts". The cited article says differently, I assume? Tsk, that's The Mail on Sunday for ya. Steve T • C 08:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
So, now it's done with, who did you vote for? Alientraveller ( talk) 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
How was my edit to the article Quantum of Solace vandalism? I was posting an opinion that many film critics expressed regarding the length and quality of the film. Alex250P ( talk) 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but don't you agree that there should be something on there with critics saying it was a slight dissapointment and not better than Casino Royale? Alex250P ( talk) 00:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. I recall that you participated in the proposal to implement C-class at another project. Would you mind weighing in at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles? I'd appreciate it. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The October 2008 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 suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say he was going to achieve any of this, but we don't elect people for what they do, but what they claim they will do. I doubt he'd get Congress to pass the nuke idea, but then again, I doubted Florida was going to pass Amendment 2. The same goes for the abortion thing. The problem with both candidates is that they are both taking an extreme side. One wants to tax us to get us better plans, the other wants the government to take control. There needs to be a middle ground. First and foremost, Medicaid and Medicare need to be revamped and better taken care of. They're good plans, but people just don't take them because the gov. doesn't want to pay more than $.60 on the dollar. That's crap compared to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the other private health companies. I think the difference between health care and police/fire/rescue/etc is that there is no "plan" with the police. People don't receive a certain level of protection from them, it's full on protection. An officer must protect you outright no matter what (freak circumstances notwithstanding). With health care, you're talking about an open market of business. The police don't make money for saving you, they're paid to do a civic duty. Doctors are trying to make money. I think the problem with McCain's campaign was primarily funding. I couldn't be on a TV channel without seeing at least 3 Obama commercials within a two our period. I didn't see a single McCain (or Republican) promo until a couple of days before Tuesday. You cannot compete with that type of funding, it's almost impossible. I was very disappointed with both candidates mudslinging (but I find that disheartening every election...one would think we would get past such childish campaign agendas). I think McCain started out very strong, but I think the funding went and after that he basically threw everything else out the window (including any ethics and morals he might have stated the election campaign with). Unfortunately, I feel like people voted for Obama because he was black and not because of his actual platform. That doesn't mean he couldn't turn out to be a good president, but it says more about the American people that we rarely look at who the candidate really is and what they will try to do while in office. I wait in anticipation for the day when the people start really looking at the candidates instead of simply voting from the hip by voting party or voting color or whatever other singled reasoning has or will be done in the future (to me, that will only be done when we can get ride of this "party" system and force candidate to be individuals). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I noticed your comment here. I feel it is possibly unfair and probably unhelpful for you to judge that Ed and I are both "guilty"; this is not a court of law. Lar's comments are aimed at improving the article, and it would be great if you could focus also on this. Best wishes to you, -- John ( talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Erik! When you made your argument, you noted that it was solely plot detail and no real-world context. I have since and am still making serious revisions to the article, essentially cutting anything that I cannot reference and adding out of universe information that I can cite with books. I think the marketing and reception sections show promise and would probably move/rename the article to Characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas or something to that effect. Anyway, due to my ongoing efforts to radically revise the article so that it has cited, out of universe comments, any chance you might reconsider, even if it's for a merge or redirect instead? Anyway, thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 06:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason for writing them out as opposed to the ISO-whatever format? Oh, and how does this strike you? Steve T • C 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I've bought myself an issue of Cinefex. If you want, next week I'll be able to use my school computer to scan and upload an image of Aaron Eckhart with laser markers and skullcap on set, with a proper CG shot of Two-Face.
I've been thinking of a guideline to implement in WP:MOSFILM (Lord knows that page is big enough now though) for resources on production. So from easiest to access, most comprehensive and reliable to not, we can mention things like DVDs, books, production notes; the archives in Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Time, NYT, Variety, and American Cinematographer; notable fansites; expensive subscribers' stuff like Cinfex, THR, LAT; and the print articles random people may have in their house (eg. Empire). It would be useful for casual editors like me who have enough of a hard time navigating an online archive to even think about investigating the slurry of Google News. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mayalld ( talk) 07:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think my question at [1] may have been overlooked as other subjects were added, so perhaps you won't mind if I repeat it here. Excuse my apparent stupidity, but what does the phrase "Start Date," as used in this discussion, mean? Is it a reference to the date filming began? The date the film opened? Something else completely? Thanks for the clarification. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean the Imdb topic should be re-examined? How does one even re-initialize the topic? He's interpreting the lack of consensus as carte blanche to mean that Imdb is perfectly fine to use as a shiny perfect source for citations. Homey don't play that.
So, how are classes? Have any internships lined up? -
Arcayne
(cast a spell) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I took the Film infobox off my watchlist because I got tired of his repetative comments about how IMDb is such a great source. Ironically, I wouldn't be able to cite that in any real paper I would write for school. IMO, it's over anyway, because the Admin came and removed the coding. There hasn't been this public outcry that people were claiming there would be. I have looked at some of those older FAs, as well as a few FAs that passed a few months ago, and I was actually slightly appalled that they passed. 300 is a rather small article for a film that was so much in the public eye. I think that there is such a push to get articles (especially film and television) into FA status that we've been lax on a lot of our mores, as far as FA standards goes.
Anyway, I've been working in my sandboxes trying to finish up old work. I've almost completed all of the production info from the original Friday the 13th page. Other than that, I've been working to get all those Smallville related articles up to atleast GA status. There just haven't been any new/upcoming films that have peaked my interest as far as editing goes. I think that if I ever finish this backlog of articles then I'll probably start focusing on the new stuff again. Right now, the only "new" stuff I have is the upcoming Friday the 13th remake. Horror gets such little attention that I tend to devote most of my time to that, and the just as inattentive Smallville articles. I haven't forgot that we still have to finish Batman Begins and get that up to FA status. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Erik, just popping in from WP:RM. You recently proposed to move Fortress (1993 film) to Fortress (film), with the justification that there is no other film with the same title on Wikipedia. I've found Fortress (1986 film), which invalidates your claim that the 1993 film is the only one. Do you intend to demonstrate the 1993 film is more notable (and therefore has primacy to the plain "(film)" title), or would you prefer I delist the proposal? I have no preference one way or the other, I'm just trying to work through the requests at WP:RM and move pages where they need to be moved, and thought that contacting you directly would help expedite the conclusion this specific proposal. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
...please note that I have begun as in still working on the process of adding references from published books (see [2] and [3]). Surely this is enough to show either potential or at least justification for a merge and rediect? Please reconsider so that we can continue these efforts to improve the article. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I want to see both those movies, but the problem is I don't have enough time to see both of them, and was wondering if you could help me decide. Which one of those would you recommend? I have problems deciding which one I should see on the big screen and which one I should wait for until it comes on DVD. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it would be unreasonable to put most of what's on Category:Videos and DVDs up for AfD? There are a couple of exceptions, but most of it seems to be pages for boxsets. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
On DRV, you said: "Many of the keep arguments were not grounded in policies and guidelines and tended to shrug off WP:PLOT, which insists on a plot summary in the context of real-world context." How do you suppose this is accomplished? Plots are by nature in-universe and I don't see how sort of plot summary well-written or not could be put in real-world context. - Mgm| (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I've just had it with fictional things being treated like they don't exist. I don't wanna leave, but I've feeling that I have to if the merging mess doesn't get fixed. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 01:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The "subscription" is free and available to any user. I had just done so myself a few moments ago so I could verify the contents of the sources... as can anyone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it was an online only poll. Empire also did a sexiest film stars poll recently, which was only published online. Alientraveller ( talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I know you work hard maintaining the various film articles, so I turn to you...and one or two others... for advice and/or an opinion on an extremely long ongoing discussion over on the WALL-E article's talk page. In a nutshell, there are a few editors who feel that one minor character (who is on-screen for maybe a minute at most) needs to be described as looking similar to another character, yet not one other character has a physical description listed in the article, including the main characters or other non-background-only minor characters. In full disclosure, my stance is of the description being unnecessary for article comprehension. I didn't see anything specific in MOS:FILM that addresses this specific point. Would you mind taking a few minutes (or more, we've been rather wordy) and share what you think? Thank you. SpikeJones ( talk) 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for writing the newsletter, I really appreciate it. I was actually going to get to it tonight, but I guess I should have told someone. My classes have been really time-consuming right now, but it should be over in a few weeks once I graduate. I'm going to make a few minor updates and then I'll send it out using AWB, which shouldn't take too long (sometimes I like to beat Cbrown1023's bot to the punch). Anyway, thanks again for your hard work and let me know if you need help with anything. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. No problem. And thanks for the heads up.... :-) ( Quentin X ( talk) 15:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
OK I've been a good bald guy and searched for and uploaded some film reels which could probably replace our existing cartoon type icons. Take your pick from the following. I'll propose it to WP:Films so we can reach a consensus on which to use. Count Blofeld 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please use the template next time to review articles for GAN. There is a link in the template on article talk pages to start the review process. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that the way you handled the situation, especially at the end, was great. I think that where the link is now is precisely where it always should have been, and I was just too stubborn to have tried something different from the start. Brand Eks ( talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Erik, I am not sure why the link I added for How to Lose friends & Alienate People was against any kind of posting guidelines... I gave the link external linking guide a thorough read and consider it match all 4 of the points under "What should be linked". Could you please outline why this link was removed? If IMDb, Metacritic, Rotten Tomato's etc... can be there, I am more than certain TMDb can be too. Travisbell ( talk) 10:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
1. Do you agree that the phrase "Bolt (film)" realistically could only refer to the two films entitled "Bolt," both of which appear below many other uses on the disambiguation page? If so, whom do you believe you're helping by forcing people to read through numerous irrelevant meanings (instead of directing them to the more likely of the two targets, which links directly to the less likely target right at the top).
2. Did you check the
list of incoming links? —
David Levy 19:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow, thank you so much for the advice! Like I told Nehrams2020, I've been doing a solo flight on the Treasure Planet article for the longest time, and I'm happy to finally hear advice from other editors! I'll get started on the improvements that you pointed out, though I'm not too sure about finding more info for the critical reaction section because I think I exhausted everything I could find so far. I'm also not too sure what to do with the "Differences from the novel" section because I don't think "Writing" will work for it at the moment...I'll try to find some more sources that talk about the writing for the film and see if I can add some more information. In the meantime, should I just merge it into the "Development" subheading? Or should I retain the "Differences from the novel" heading and just move it under the "Production" section? Please let me know what you think, and thanks again! -- SilentAria talk 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
An extended edition of a film with an added eight+minute extension is enough to warrant notification for viewer reference. If they weren't, they really wouldn't be listed as such at the back of the film's dvd. Which is why they're also included in IMDB and other sources. In Hancock's case, the unrated edition is nearly ten minutes longer than the theatrical version. They're very much notable. Beem2 ( talk) 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The importance of the content in the extended version is irrelevant. There are several films on Wikipedia in which have their Theatrical & Unrated runtimes listed. Whether or not the extra content is of importance is ultimately up to the viewer/consumer to decide on their own. Beem2 ( talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the intro. As I mention on my user page, I've actually been a contributor here for over three years now (albeit anonymously) but only recently decided to finally register an account. I've been making gnomish edits to film pages (mostly grammar fixes, cleanup, and updates to release dates) for about half a year now, and recall seeing you pop up in the history on many of the pages I've edited in the past. See you around. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 16:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I kind of like to include the publisher field because the more info in the cite, the better, but no worries. Cirt ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be best to alter the WP:CIT templates so that this is done in there, with 2008-12-11 as the default type of style for inputting dates? Would make things easier by default/standardization in the future... Cirt ( talk) 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Erik, when you click 'undo', do you wind up being given the option to cut and paste the whole article again? Alientraveller ( talk) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Erik, let me answer thematically:
I am of the personal belief that all 23 Eon Bond films should be listed together, but some may argue that there are enough people who consider the Craig films a separate franchise than the 20 others to list them as separate. Bond 23 might not be as direct a continutation of 22 as 22 was of 21 but there's no denying they are part of the same franchise. When Bond 23 comes out and Bond 24 is getting made, then the "new" Bond franchise should go into tetralogy.
Can you honestly tell me that you believe it is not "set in stone" that a new Batman film is made following The Dark Knight? It will happen, with or without Nolan, and will follow in the footsteps of The Dark Knight, thus being part of the same Batman chronology. Finally Christian Bale is contractually obligated to do another Batman movie, so unless he dies or pays Warner Bros a shitload of compensation money, there will be a third Batman movie with him.
My main beef however wasn't with either Batman or Bond (Batman is already a trilogy btw with Batman: Gotham Knight in the middle). Rather Darrenhusted deleting xXx 3, Ghostbusters 3, Iron Man 2, etc and having the gall to proclaim that these films are just wishful thinking by fanboys and that they haven't been written or aren't planned by the makers, production companies etc... Completely ridiculous. Happy Evil Dude ( talk) 15:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding more comments and taking the time to look through the entire article. I've addressed several of your points and will be getting to the rest this weekend after I have my final on Saturday. Once I finish addressing all of your points I'll send you another message. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Erik, I've been really busy with all my holiday shopping so all I can do right now is flick vandalism and make to the point talk page comments. I could hardly care less right now whether people want to create a disambiguation page for two films with the same title (The Day the Earth Stood Still) or put Quantum of Solace at (film). But now we're all being forced to deal with Inclusionist (real conflict of interest there) who wants to abolish WP:FUTFILMS just so he/she can have an article for the third Narnia film.
I hope you're doing well this time: me, I'm realising Christmas is very stressful now I'm grown up. And to be honest Erik, I really wonder why I write these articles on future films, when I look at forums all the time, and just realise how really cynical and shallow most film fans and critics are. They don't even bother reading our work, claiming we're unreliable (despite our citations) and just how stupid they are when they think Jurassic Park IV was getting made. And for what? So people still think Edward Norton fell out with Marvel although it was actually the media who forced the annoyed actor not do press? I'm sick of reading cites where interviewers keep asking Stanton if WALL-E was intentionally a pro-environmental film (anyone heard of intentional fallacy?) for their readers, as if they don't read other papers. I get what Spielberg means when he sees movies late each year and wonders what everyone whinges about, but that cynicism unfortunately affects me when I see "mixed" reviews and I'm like, 'why do I still bother' if people don't get what the majority of intelligent craftsmen in the film business aim for, and call them unoriginal despite coming up with great concepts each year (aliens in Indiana Jones; way to whine about originality).
Excuse me if I'm turning into a grumpy old man, and my mood will settle once the Christmas spirit arrives. I mean, it's the only time religion seems to be embraced by the whole media, which is nice. I generally see God as being a fact for me and my relationship with him is very unspiritual. Just be nice you know, and try to make this universe from the infinite ones He created not turn out to be the negative ones. Anyway, how you been? Alientraveller ( talk) 12:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi User:Eric,
Steve is very busy this month and I asked him if he could improve some of
The Naked Brothers Band articles and said when he gets the chance that he'll take a look at it.
So in the mean time, I was wondering if you could take a look at it as well.
It's a little messy and needs some work.
I did major work on it for a while, but still needs a lot more work.
I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to look in addition to
Steve.
Thanx!
ATC
(talk) 00:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Erik, thanks for participating in I Not Stupid Too's peer review. I addressed one of your concerns and requested clarification on several others. Could you please post follow-up comments, especially for your two concerns over referencing? Then I can quickly deal with those issues. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice, I had seen the future attribute before but didn't know about the date tracking feature. I'll definitely keep those updated when I update release dates from now on. Out of curiousity though, for a new release, when does that "Future" class get swapped out for a regular class type? That example mentions sweeping through at the end of the month or year to re-assess the article, but I've seen them removed as early as a day before release for some films, which would obviously also remove them from this tracking list. Does "assess" here really only mean "look through and switch from future to present/past tense"? – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Just encountered a situation and was wondering if there was an existing convention here for how to classify a film's year when its theatrical release occurs in a different year than its first public screening. For instance, The Great Buck Howard was first publicly screened at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, but will not have a theatrical release until 2009. For the purpose of the intro, where many articles call out the year, and also the year categories, would this film be considered a 2008 film or a 2009 film? I know imdb classifies their dates based on first public performance, as does the Academy Awards eligibility rules (which is why there are typically so many limited releases of award contenders in late December). Do we do the same, or follow some other convention? – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Erik, thanks for initiating a discussion. I have no strong feelings about this suggestion to merge the nascent sequel to the original movie. It looks like the current material originated there. The guideline may be a good one, but in this case there appears to be more advance press and attention than average. Good source material on a stub article for movies tends to attract writers, either dedicated writers or accretion by multiple writers but being part of a larger article tends to distract writers from adding material. For this reason, I would be disappointed if it was merged back. I would not oppose it but it seems like a reflexive adherence to a guideline rather than a thoughtful review of the material and its growth potential. Miami33139 ( talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Remember about
The Naked Brothers Band articles.
You told me I could nudge you about it so...
ATC
(talk) 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for contacting me. I guess I should say that my frustration isn't because coordinators add opinions overall on discussions. What my issue has been is that it seems that some tend to be dismissive of opinions/suggestions made by participants who aren't as active. In this particular case, I spent a few hours working up the example and the only reference that Girolamo Savonarola, who was replying directly to my posting, made to it at all was that he didn't like the splitting of wins and losses, then went right on to something else entirely, which really felt dismissive to me. It's not my first experience with that from him and it is why I rarely participate in discussions. The table I made is easily converted to contain all the nominations/wins into one table, perhaps grouping the wins first, followed by the nominations, and I honestly would like to see a bit of consistency between WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM. I recognize that the coordinators are the members who are most active, that is the reason I supported the nominations that I did last time. Having said that, however, I have seen situations where coordinator opinion does seem to carry more weight than others, except perhaps PC78. I can't speak for other editors, but my experience has been that often, the opinion of a new or rarely active editor is given less weight than the regulars, although not solely on WP:FILMS. It's not necessarily a spoken, or perhaps even a recognized, attitude. I ran across this earlier this week in discussions about images - a wall of sorts between the "us" and "them" where newcomers to dealing with licensing issues were discounted because they weren't savvy about all the issues complicating use of images. Rather than help with figuring out what was needed, the attitude was "you didn't provide it, so unless you do, it's going." I've been here close to 3 years, and yet there are areas that I don't work in much. It's frustrating to even old-timers. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 15:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get back to you like I should have about the line between awards, but I'm glad to see you found it and I accomplished it. In that sort of format, I'm thinking a reference for each group of awards (Academy, Golden Globe, etc.) could be given at the main category, instead of having 6 Academy Award references, only one would be necessary. In almost all cases, I think awards could be referenced from one place. I'm ambivalent about using Academy Award for Best Director vs. Best Director, although in either case, each has its own WP article and should be linked that way.
Meanwhile, happily, I won a battle this weekend. I found the present source for the Charles Whitman images I mentioned, which was a library, and managed to obtain public domain release for them. I felt so vindicated on that!! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
If I have a suggestion about the section it would be to recast the Rotten Tomatoes paragraph to account for the fact that the reviews it lists are taken from all throughout the last eleven years, including the period of its original release. This means that it doesn't support the fact that the film has been reappraised since the original, polarising, reaction, nor that it had one in the first place. The "Top Critics" section, however, with the exception of two from 2002, lists reviews exclusively from around the period of the film's release, and this may be a better page to cite, at least to support the fact that it split critics. However, to get around the first point, as Wikipedia does allow (despite WP:OR) simple calculations, I wonder if you couldn't just use RT's raw data to work out the score from reviews after 1999? As long as the calculation is detailed in a footnote of some kind, I don't think there'd be a problem when it (eventually!) comes to FAC. Steve T • C 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I've lost so much so much faith in the UK media for reporting like it's more than hope and dreams. After this and claiming Cher would be Catwoman, I've lost what little faith I had in the Telegraph (well, whatever faith I had). Funny old world, I know we wouldn't cite Rich Johnston for an article about the war in Iraq but we gotta give their ilk more credit in our guidelines really: they can smell the real nonsense. Still, I'm glad the wrong version just says "reported", but my faith in the wiki is still shaken by how the admins gave into an IP who always changed his address.
Anyway, are you aware of what the possibly changed ending is? Alientraveller ( talk) 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Was wondering if you could consult on this? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a little sparse isn't it? It looks ripe for some embiggening; I've some bookmarked Variety articles about it at home, I'll take a look later and see what can be incorporated. Do you think we should include any of that sh*t about those initial rumours of its being a new Dirty Harry film? Steve T • C 15:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Batman (1989 film)#Reliable Sources. Thanks. Wildroot ( talk) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey i nominated that article for deletion would you mind voting clicky. I could not find any reliable source if you found any add it. Thanks. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 05:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
My mother is a big fan of James Bond movies, and I'm not really sure what to expect. I'm very worried that this movie will either be too technical or too boring. And I won't make a video asking anyone else but you, since you're a movie professional. Well, by that I mean professional about movies, not making them. So tell me, is it all worth it? TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 13:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
See this discussion concerning moving my topic workshop draft into the project. Feel free to propose any potential topics you have in mind. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 07:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I came to Wikipedia for knowledge, but with all the vandalism going on I'm getting more random crap than useful information, and seeing the talk pages on pages like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington is like watching a never-ending documentary.
Wikipedia isn't serious anymore in my opinion, you're a smart person, and you're actually the only friend on Wikipedia I had true discussions with besides editing. So goodbye, it's time to leave before I get even further brainwashed by Wikipedia vandalism, it's bad enough to get brainwashed by television, movies and so on, I shouldn't be brainwashed by stupid remarks that can be found in vandalism.
I will miss you, Erik, you're truly a great guy. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 12:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
But I can't trust this site entirely, most news reporters live in a fantasy world, but instead of watching everything I want, I will only keep an eye on pages I wanna know more about at the moment. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 01:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
How can I avoid getting spam on my Wikipedia talk page? I hate the coordinator of the week program. Just because I'm a member of a WikiProject does not mean I'm interested in everything that's happening. Help would be really appreciated. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You are a movie researcher, and you know a lot about movies. That's why I'm asking for your help, the media told me that this is the movie that will get Halloween to be how it should be. But last year, I watched this movie BEFORE Halloween and this one on Halloween, I hated that movie, it was the reason Halloween last year was one of the crappiest Halloweens I ever had. (I can't remember any crappy Halloween when I was a kid, as I just got really open to the United States on my teen years)
Please help me out, I want the Halloween to turn out great, not crappy, and without your help, I could as well be watching a movie that sucks so bad I will regret it for the rest of my life. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 11:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
P. S. If you happen to know the best article for teen years do me a favor and change the redirect. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 11:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the AfD (a short one) and then tell me what your thoughts are on List of Timothy Asch films? I borrowed the "list from the Timothy Asch article, and then borrowed the content and sourcing from the 14 films on that list that already had their own seperate article. I certainly do not recommend this for other such lists, but in this case, the 14 other articles were quite stubby, and including their informations on one page made a lot of sense. My own thought is that those 14 other articles may be deleeted and set as redirects to the list or to Asch. If, however unlikley, one of the other films gets enough additiional information or coverage to grow bigger than waht bits were there, we might then consider giving it its own article. Your opinion would be most appreciated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've whipped up a template to provide a generic text description for these categories. Just add {{
WPFILMS Future-Class films to be released category header}}
and use the single parameter to specify either the year or month & year. Transclude rather than subst, so the text can be easily be edited. Regards.
PC78 (
talk) 18:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the updating of WP:FUTFILM has been a little neglected lately; for me it's simply been a matter of prioritising other tasks ahead of cleanup operations. Though it's good to see other editors, ones who I've never seen at WT:FILM, using WP:NFF in their AfDs, it shows it has the broad support of the community. I'd definitely be up for helping to create an essay based on all the arguments we've used/seen at these AfDs. I'll pull something together over the weekend if you want. Steve T • C 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, good sir, for removing the god-awful plot summary from the RocknRolla page. I salute your contribution. Plot summaries are generally a miserable waste of space. Some guy ( talk) 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I got all sorts of nagging minor things I need advise on:
Psst. I saw that edit to Fight Club yesterday, and was going to revert, but on a whim I checked the scene and Pitt does indeed say "shirts". The cited article says differently, I assume? Tsk, that's The Mail on Sunday for ya. Steve T • C 08:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
So, now it's done with, who did you vote for? Alientraveller ( talk) 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
How was my edit to the article Quantum of Solace vandalism? I was posting an opinion that many film critics expressed regarding the length and quality of the film. Alex250P ( talk) 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but don't you agree that there should be something on there with critics saying it was a slight dissapointment and not better than Casino Royale? Alex250P ( talk) 00:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. I recall that you participated in the proposal to implement C-class at another project. Would you mind weighing in at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles? I'd appreciate it. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The October 2008 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 suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say he was going to achieve any of this, but we don't elect people for what they do, but what they claim they will do. I doubt he'd get Congress to pass the nuke idea, but then again, I doubted Florida was going to pass Amendment 2. The same goes for the abortion thing. The problem with both candidates is that they are both taking an extreme side. One wants to tax us to get us better plans, the other wants the government to take control. There needs to be a middle ground. First and foremost, Medicaid and Medicare need to be revamped and better taken care of. They're good plans, but people just don't take them because the gov. doesn't want to pay more than $.60 on the dollar. That's crap compared to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the other private health companies. I think the difference between health care and police/fire/rescue/etc is that there is no "plan" with the police. People don't receive a certain level of protection from them, it's full on protection. An officer must protect you outright no matter what (freak circumstances notwithstanding). With health care, you're talking about an open market of business. The police don't make money for saving you, they're paid to do a civic duty. Doctors are trying to make money. I think the problem with McCain's campaign was primarily funding. I couldn't be on a TV channel without seeing at least 3 Obama commercials within a two our period. I didn't see a single McCain (or Republican) promo until a couple of days before Tuesday. You cannot compete with that type of funding, it's almost impossible. I was very disappointed with both candidates mudslinging (but I find that disheartening every election...one would think we would get past such childish campaign agendas). I think McCain started out very strong, but I think the funding went and after that he basically threw everything else out the window (including any ethics and morals he might have stated the election campaign with). Unfortunately, I feel like people voted for Obama because he was black and not because of his actual platform. That doesn't mean he couldn't turn out to be a good president, but it says more about the American people that we rarely look at who the candidate really is and what they will try to do while in office. I wait in anticipation for the day when the people start really looking at the candidates instead of simply voting from the hip by voting party or voting color or whatever other singled reasoning has or will be done in the future (to me, that will only be done when we can get ride of this "party" system and force candidate to be individuals). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I noticed your comment here. I feel it is possibly unfair and probably unhelpful for you to judge that Ed and I are both "guilty"; this is not a court of law. Lar's comments are aimed at improving the article, and it would be great if you could focus also on this. Best wishes to you, -- John ( talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Erik! When you made your argument, you noted that it was solely plot detail and no real-world context. I have since and am still making serious revisions to the article, essentially cutting anything that I cannot reference and adding out of universe information that I can cite with books. I think the marketing and reception sections show promise and would probably move/rename the article to Characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas or something to that effect. Anyway, due to my ongoing efforts to radically revise the article so that it has cited, out of universe comments, any chance you might reconsider, even if it's for a merge or redirect instead? Anyway, thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 06:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason for writing them out as opposed to the ISO-whatever format? Oh, and how does this strike you? Steve T • C 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I've bought myself an issue of Cinefex. If you want, next week I'll be able to use my school computer to scan and upload an image of Aaron Eckhart with laser markers and skullcap on set, with a proper CG shot of Two-Face.
I've been thinking of a guideline to implement in WP:MOSFILM (Lord knows that page is big enough now though) for resources on production. So from easiest to access, most comprehensive and reliable to not, we can mention things like DVDs, books, production notes; the archives in Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Time, NYT, Variety, and American Cinematographer; notable fansites; expensive subscribers' stuff like Cinfex, THR, LAT; and the print articles random people may have in their house (eg. Empire). It would be useful for casual editors like me who have enough of a hard time navigating an online archive to even think about investigating the slurry of Google News. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mayalld ( talk) 07:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think my question at [1] may have been overlooked as other subjects were added, so perhaps you won't mind if I repeat it here. Excuse my apparent stupidity, but what does the phrase "Start Date," as used in this discussion, mean? Is it a reference to the date filming began? The date the film opened? Something else completely? Thanks for the clarification. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean the Imdb topic should be re-examined? How does one even re-initialize the topic? He's interpreting the lack of consensus as carte blanche to mean that Imdb is perfectly fine to use as a shiny perfect source for citations. Homey don't play that.
So, how are classes? Have any internships lined up? -
Arcayne
(cast a spell) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I took the Film infobox off my watchlist because I got tired of his repetative comments about how IMDb is such a great source. Ironically, I wouldn't be able to cite that in any real paper I would write for school. IMO, it's over anyway, because the Admin came and removed the coding. There hasn't been this public outcry that people were claiming there would be. I have looked at some of those older FAs, as well as a few FAs that passed a few months ago, and I was actually slightly appalled that they passed. 300 is a rather small article for a film that was so much in the public eye. I think that there is such a push to get articles (especially film and television) into FA status that we've been lax on a lot of our mores, as far as FA standards goes.
Anyway, I've been working in my sandboxes trying to finish up old work. I've almost completed all of the production info from the original Friday the 13th page. Other than that, I've been working to get all those Smallville related articles up to atleast GA status. There just haven't been any new/upcoming films that have peaked my interest as far as editing goes. I think that if I ever finish this backlog of articles then I'll probably start focusing on the new stuff again. Right now, the only "new" stuff I have is the upcoming Friday the 13th remake. Horror gets such little attention that I tend to devote most of my time to that, and the just as inattentive Smallville articles. I haven't forgot that we still have to finish Batman Begins and get that up to FA status. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Erik, just popping in from WP:RM. You recently proposed to move Fortress (1993 film) to Fortress (film), with the justification that there is no other film with the same title on Wikipedia. I've found Fortress (1986 film), which invalidates your claim that the 1993 film is the only one. Do you intend to demonstrate the 1993 film is more notable (and therefore has primacy to the plain "(film)" title), or would you prefer I delist the proposal? I have no preference one way or the other, I'm just trying to work through the requests at WP:RM and move pages where they need to be moved, and thought that contacting you directly would help expedite the conclusion this specific proposal. Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
...please note that I have begun as in still working on the process of adding references from published books (see [2] and [3]). Surely this is enough to show either potential or at least justification for a merge and rediect? Please reconsider so that we can continue these efforts to improve the article. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I want to see both those movies, but the problem is I don't have enough time to see both of them, and was wondering if you could help me decide. Which one of those would you recommend? I have problems deciding which one I should see on the big screen and which one I should wait for until it comes on DVD. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it would be unreasonable to put most of what's on Category:Videos and DVDs up for AfD? There are a couple of exceptions, but most of it seems to be pages for boxsets. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
On DRV, you said: "Many of the keep arguments were not grounded in policies and guidelines and tended to shrug off WP:PLOT, which insists on a plot summary in the context of real-world context." How do you suppose this is accomplished? Plots are by nature in-universe and I don't see how sort of plot summary well-written or not could be put in real-world context. - Mgm| (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I've just had it with fictional things being treated like they don't exist. I don't wanna leave, but I've feeling that I have to if the merging mess doesn't get fixed. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 01:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The "subscription" is free and available to any user. I had just done so myself a few moments ago so I could verify the contents of the sources... as can anyone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it was an online only poll. Empire also did a sexiest film stars poll recently, which was only published online. Alientraveller ( talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I know you work hard maintaining the various film articles, so I turn to you...and one or two others... for advice and/or an opinion on an extremely long ongoing discussion over on the WALL-E article's talk page. In a nutshell, there are a few editors who feel that one minor character (who is on-screen for maybe a minute at most) needs to be described as looking similar to another character, yet not one other character has a physical description listed in the article, including the main characters or other non-background-only minor characters. In full disclosure, my stance is of the description being unnecessary for article comprehension. I didn't see anything specific in MOS:FILM that addresses this specific point. Would you mind taking a few minutes (or more, we've been rather wordy) and share what you think? Thank you. SpikeJones ( talk) 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for writing the newsletter, I really appreciate it. I was actually going to get to it tonight, but I guess I should have told someone. My classes have been really time-consuming right now, but it should be over in a few weeks once I graduate. I'm going to make a few minor updates and then I'll send it out using AWB, which shouldn't take too long (sometimes I like to beat Cbrown1023's bot to the punch). Anyway, thanks again for your hard work and let me know if you need help with anything. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. No problem. And thanks for the heads up.... :-) ( Quentin X ( talk) 15:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
OK I've been a good bald guy and searched for and uploaded some film reels which could probably replace our existing cartoon type icons. Take your pick from the following. I'll propose it to WP:Films so we can reach a consensus on which to use. Count Blofeld 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please use the template next time to review articles for GAN. There is a link in the template on article talk pages to start the review process. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that the way you handled the situation, especially at the end, was great. I think that where the link is now is precisely where it always should have been, and I was just too stubborn to have tried something different from the start. Brand Eks ( talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Erik, I am not sure why the link I added for How to Lose friends & Alienate People was against any kind of posting guidelines... I gave the link external linking guide a thorough read and consider it match all 4 of the points under "What should be linked". Could you please outline why this link was removed? If IMDb, Metacritic, Rotten Tomato's etc... can be there, I am more than certain TMDb can be too. Travisbell ( talk) 10:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
1. Do you agree that the phrase "Bolt (film)" realistically could only refer to the two films entitled "Bolt," both of which appear below many other uses on the disambiguation page? If so, whom do you believe you're helping by forcing people to read through numerous irrelevant meanings (instead of directing them to the more likely of the two targets, which links directly to the less likely target right at the top).
2. Did you check the
list of incoming links? —
David Levy 19:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow, thank you so much for the advice! Like I told Nehrams2020, I've been doing a solo flight on the Treasure Planet article for the longest time, and I'm happy to finally hear advice from other editors! I'll get started on the improvements that you pointed out, though I'm not too sure about finding more info for the critical reaction section because I think I exhausted everything I could find so far. I'm also not too sure what to do with the "Differences from the novel" section because I don't think "Writing" will work for it at the moment...I'll try to find some more sources that talk about the writing for the film and see if I can add some more information. In the meantime, should I just merge it into the "Development" subheading? Or should I retain the "Differences from the novel" heading and just move it under the "Production" section? Please let me know what you think, and thanks again! -- SilentAria talk 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
An extended edition of a film with an added eight+minute extension is enough to warrant notification for viewer reference. If they weren't, they really wouldn't be listed as such at the back of the film's dvd. Which is why they're also included in IMDB and other sources. In Hancock's case, the unrated edition is nearly ten minutes longer than the theatrical version. They're very much notable. Beem2 ( talk) 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The importance of the content in the extended version is irrelevant. There are several films on Wikipedia in which have their Theatrical & Unrated runtimes listed. Whether or not the extra content is of importance is ultimately up to the viewer/consumer to decide on their own. Beem2 ( talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the intro. As I mention on my user page, I've actually been a contributor here for over three years now (albeit anonymously) but only recently decided to finally register an account. I've been making gnomish edits to film pages (mostly grammar fixes, cleanup, and updates to release dates) for about half a year now, and recall seeing you pop up in the history on many of the pages I've edited in the past. See you around. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 16:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I kind of like to include the publisher field because the more info in the cite, the better, but no worries. Cirt ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be best to alter the WP:CIT templates so that this is done in there, with 2008-12-11 as the default type of style for inputting dates? Would make things easier by default/standardization in the future... Cirt ( talk) 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Erik, when you click 'undo', do you wind up being given the option to cut and paste the whole article again? Alientraveller ( talk) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Erik, let me answer thematically:
I am of the personal belief that all 23 Eon Bond films should be listed together, but some may argue that there are enough people who consider the Craig films a separate franchise than the 20 others to list them as separate. Bond 23 might not be as direct a continutation of 22 as 22 was of 21 but there's no denying they are part of the same franchise. When Bond 23 comes out and Bond 24 is getting made, then the "new" Bond franchise should go into tetralogy.
Can you honestly tell me that you believe it is not "set in stone" that a new Batman film is made following The Dark Knight? It will happen, with or without Nolan, and will follow in the footsteps of The Dark Knight, thus being part of the same Batman chronology. Finally Christian Bale is contractually obligated to do another Batman movie, so unless he dies or pays Warner Bros a shitload of compensation money, there will be a third Batman movie with him.
My main beef however wasn't with either Batman or Bond (Batman is already a trilogy btw with Batman: Gotham Knight in the middle). Rather Darrenhusted deleting xXx 3, Ghostbusters 3, Iron Man 2, etc and having the gall to proclaim that these films are just wishful thinking by fanboys and that they haven't been written or aren't planned by the makers, production companies etc... Completely ridiculous. Happy Evil Dude ( talk) 15:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding more comments and taking the time to look through the entire article. I've addressed several of your points and will be getting to the rest this weekend after I have my final on Saturday. Once I finish addressing all of your points I'll send you another message. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Erik, I've been really busy with all my holiday shopping so all I can do right now is flick vandalism and make to the point talk page comments. I could hardly care less right now whether people want to create a disambiguation page for two films with the same title (The Day the Earth Stood Still) or put Quantum of Solace at (film). But now we're all being forced to deal with Inclusionist (real conflict of interest there) who wants to abolish WP:FUTFILMS just so he/she can have an article for the third Narnia film.
I hope you're doing well this time: me, I'm realising Christmas is very stressful now I'm grown up. And to be honest Erik, I really wonder why I write these articles on future films, when I look at forums all the time, and just realise how really cynical and shallow most film fans and critics are. They don't even bother reading our work, claiming we're unreliable (despite our citations) and just how stupid they are when they think Jurassic Park IV was getting made. And for what? So people still think Edward Norton fell out with Marvel although it was actually the media who forced the annoyed actor not do press? I'm sick of reading cites where interviewers keep asking Stanton if WALL-E was intentionally a pro-environmental film (anyone heard of intentional fallacy?) for their readers, as if they don't read other papers. I get what Spielberg means when he sees movies late each year and wonders what everyone whinges about, but that cynicism unfortunately affects me when I see "mixed" reviews and I'm like, 'why do I still bother' if people don't get what the majority of intelligent craftsmen in the film business aim for, and call them unoriginal despite coming up with great concepts each year (aliens in Indiana Jones; way to whine about originality).
Excuse me if I'm turning into a grumpy old man, and my mood will settle once the Christmas spirit arrives. I mean, it's the only time religion seems to be embraced by the whole media, which is nice. I generally see God as being a fact for me and my relationship with him is very unspiritual. Just be nice you know, and try to make this universe from the infinite ones He created not turn out to be the negative ones. Anyway, how you been? Alientraveller ( talk) 12:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi User:Eric,
Steve is very busy this month and I asked him if he could improve some of
The Naked Brothers Band articles and said when he gets the chance that he'll take a look at it.
So in the mean time, I was wondering if you could take a look at it as well.
It's a little messy and needs some work.
I did major work on it for a while, but still needs a lot more work.
I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to look in addition to
Steve.
Thanx!
ATC
(talk) 00:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Erik, thanks for participating in I Not Stupid Too's peer review. I addressed one of your concerns and requested clarification on several others. Could you please post follow-up comments, especially for your two concerns over referencing? Then I can quickly deal with those issues. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice, I had seen the future attribute before but didn't know about the date tracking feature. I'll definitely keep those updated when I update release dates from now on. Out of curiousity though, for a new release, when does that "Future" class get swapped out for a regular class type? That example mentions sweeping through at the end of the month or year to re-assess the article, but I've seen them removed as early as a day before release for some films, which would obviously also remove them from this tracking list. Does "assess" here really only mean "look through and switch from future to present/past tense"? – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Just encountered a situation and was wondering if there was an existing convention here for how to classify a film's year when its theatrical release occurs in a different year than its first public screening. For instance, The Great Buck Howard was first publicly screened at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, but will not have a theatrical release until 2009. For the purpose of the intro, where many articles call out the year, and also the year categories, would this film be considered a 2008 film or a 2009 film? I know imdb classifies their dates based on first public performance, as does the Academy Awards eligibility rules (which is why there are typically so many limited releases of award contenders in late December). Do we do the same, or follow some other convention? – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Erik, thanks for initiating a discussion. I have no strong feelings about this suggestion to merge the nascent sequel to the original movie. It looks like the current material originated there. The guideline may be a good one, but in this case there appears to be more advance press and attention than average. Good source material on a stub article for movies tends to attract writers, either dedicated writers or accretion by multiple writers but being part of a larger article tends to distract writers from adding material. For this reason, I would be disappointed if it was merged back. I would not oppose it but it seems like a reflexive adherence to a guideline rather than a thoughtful review of the material and its growth potential. Miami33139 ( talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Remember about
The Naked Brothers Band articles.
You told me I could nudge you about it so...
ATC
(talk) 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for contacting me. I guess I should say that my frustration isn't because coordinators add opinions overall on discussions. What my issue has been is that it seems that some tend to be dismissive of opinions/suggestions made by participants who aren't as active. In this particular case, I spent a few hours working up the example and the only reference that Girolamo Savonarola, who was replying directly to my posting, made to it at all was that he didn't like the splitting of wins and losses, then went right on to something else entirely, which really felt dismissive to me. It's not my first experience with that from him and it is why I rarely participate in discussions. The table I made is easily converted to contain all the nominations/wins into one table, perhaps grouping the wins first, followed by the nominations, and I honestly would like to see a bit of consistency between WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM. I recognize that the coordinators are the members who are most active, that is the reason I supported the nominations that I did last time. Having said that, however, I have seen situations where coordinator opinion does seem to carry more weight than others, except perhaps PC78. I can't speak for other editors, but my experience has been that often, the opinion of a new or rarely active editor is given less weight than the regulars, although not solely on WP:FILMS. It's not necessarily a spoken, or perhaps even a recognized, attitude. I ran across this earlier this week in discussions about images - a wall of sorts between the "us" and "them" where newcomers to dealing with licensing issues were discounted because they weren't savvy about all the issues complicating use of images. Rather than help with figuring out what was needed, the attitude was "you didn't provide it, so unless you do, it's going." I've been here close to 3 years, and yet there are areas that I don't work in much. It's frustrating to even old-timers. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 15:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get back to you like I should have about the line between awards, but I'm glad to see you found it and I accomplished it. In that sort of format, I'm thinking a reference for each group of awards (Academy, Golden Globe, etc.) could be given at the main category, instead of having 6 Academy Award references, only one would be necessary. In almost all cases, I think awards could be referenced from one place. I'm ambivalent about using Academy Award for Best Director vs. Best Director, although in either case, each has its own WP article and should be linked that way.
Meanwhile, happily, I won a battle this weekend. I found the present source for the Charles Whitman images I mentioned, which was a library, and managed to obtain public domain release for them. I felt so vindicated on that!! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)