![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
How are you searching the Variety website for those American Beauty cites? I intended to throw the film's name into their search engine, sort by date, find the earliest mention of the film and work back from there to build a comprehensive "Development" section. This has worked exceedingly well for me for other films, but since Variety changed their website it isn't working properly. I can get as far back as 2002, but going beyond page 30 or so leads to nothing but a blank results page, despite it telling me there are hundreds of articles yet to be displayed. Steve T • C 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you removed the soundtrack listing from the article. Please help me understand how it violates WikiProject Albums' Track listing guideline so that I may avoid doing this again to film articles that do not have a seperate soundtrack page. DrNegative ( talk) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
On April 4, I removed a few paragraphs about post-Code films from Pre-Code Hollywood since the article is about American filmmaking prior to the inception of the Hays Code. These changes were reverted by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, for reasons he has cited on my talk page. Maybe I'm missing something, but his logic escapes me. He seems determined to combine facts pertaining to two different eras into one article, rather than leaving them in the individual articles in which I feel they belong. I'm not sure if I simply am not making my position clear, but it seems apparent he's not understanding what I'm trying to convey, i.e. details about pre-Code Hollywood belong in that article, details about developments that took place while the code was in effect belong in Hays Code, and whatever transpired after the code was abolished and the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system went into effect belongs in that article. If you care to weigh in, please feel free to do so. Thank you! LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 17:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This article already has support from myself and (seemingly) MelicansMatkin, and your concerns seem to have been more or less dealt with. Unless you have any specific objections, I intend to close the review and pass the article for A-Class in the next few days or so. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Erik has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, |
-- Dylan 620 Efforts · Toolbox 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Erik,I'm researching films and their wikis and I'd like to talk with the contributors. E.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cat_Soup#Nekojiru-sou_and_wiki I will come back to this page. Thank you; and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.252.62 ( talk) 08:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you can help me. I feel like I'm going around in circles with another user named Taran Wanderer T.W. at Talk: The Rescuers about the edits made. Can you see if there's a better way to communicate with her, or if I'm completely off base here? I don't know how else to explain it, and I'm growing tired of dealing with it. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. Cactusjump ( talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was going to nominate this template for deletion when I saw this discussion. Does this mean you don't mind/want to template to be deleted? It still is in use on some articles although I was tempted to remove it. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's Hunter Kahn, from the Tender Mercies FAC. As per some of the discussion there, I've started a Themes and Analyses section. As I said in the FAC, it's right now heavily dependent on one source and I am going to work on adding more, but I was hoping you could take a look at what's there now and let me provide me some feedback as to whether this is the correct direction I should be heading in. Thank you! — Hunter Kahn ( contribs) 18:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Thor (2010 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ThuranX ( talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comments on this proposal would be welcome! :) PC78 ( talk) 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I wish to create a sandbox for this film to be used for the actual article when filming begins. Where is the best place to create one (my userpage or somewhere else) for all of the project members and other wikipedians to contribute to it? Also where should I post links to it so that they may be aware of its existence? - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm neither the original author of the material you removed nor the least bit concerned with its deletion from the article, but I am curious about your rationale of "unreliable reviews". I mean, how do you get more reliable than Howard Waldrop, Neil Gaiman, Gary Westfahl and Locus? I must be missing something. If so, what is it? Viriditas ( talk) 12:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I hope to tackle Star Trek: First Contact next, but will probably have to wait until I get access to my university library again. I would knock old FAs, but I'm painfully aware some of my old video game articles are rather middling and I have to go back and spruce them up at some point :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Girolama already messaged me about that, and I see my error now. I'll read the page you linked though; I've never heard of that before, so thanks. Happy editing. Lәo( βǃʘʘɱ) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long, but I have finally replied to your last message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#New layout -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 02:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Aside from a regression back into the dilliances of video gaming, I'm working on the nitty-gritty painful exploits of writing critical reception for Star Trek: First Contact. I won't be able to hunt down any of the sourcing for the most part until I get within close physical proximity of my library next term, but I'm working on it :) Anyhow, I was wondering if you would be up to pulling together another list of refs when you have the chance (there is in no way any sort of reasonable deadline to get this done, it's just when you do.) I really don't know which Star Trek film I want to work on after First Contact, so I'm offering the selecting task to you; there's the metaphysical one, the one with the whales, the one that almost killed the franchise, the one Ronald Moore apologized for, the one where they search for the fountain of youth and come up against some mean plastic surgery-crazed aliens, and the one that broke the odd-numbered curse, in a bad way (I'm leaving the reboot to Alientraveller and those chaps.) Pick one, if you wish! Cheers, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Erik. Just wanted to say thanks to keeping an eye on Watchmen for the past few months. I'm still not ready to come back to full editing status on Wikipedia, but maybe sometime soon, who knows. I haven't looked at the Watchmen article since I stopped editing it (and I'm almost afraid to look, given how stressful it became near the end), but let me know if any particular problems have come up, or if you need to verify something I cited. I'm just curious as to how it's been holding up. Once again, it'll probably be a while before I come back to that article, so I appreciate all that you've done. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah... I am beginning to think this is a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT too. Still willing to give it another try, but my patience is running out. When someone tells me I am wrong about a policy I helped write it is hard to assume good faith. Blueboar ( talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I got you wrong on that one, Erik. I was obviously convinced you were making a mistake but I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. Thanks for hanging in there. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hope you had a great trip and are happy to return to the joys and pains of Wikipedia. The July article improvement drive isn't going as expected, but I guess I did kind of rush it in at the last minute. Maybe awards need to be mentioned at the beginning to inspire members to work on improving content. There's still half the month left though, so it's possible editors are still working on articles and waiting to nominate them. I just wanted to see if you wanted to recommend any changes to it or add an article of your own (if you wish). If not, no worries. Again, welcome back (although you didn't really leave! I'm still waiting for the day that I can go on vacation and not check my watchlist once, maybe I'd need to go to a deserted island...). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I've got access to JSTOR and LexisNexis, which is good enough for getting 75% of the stuff, but I need the bibliographic information for all the Cinefantastique/ et al that your databases have. I've got a good year or more's work left to finish up the remaining 6 articles, but this goes a long way to helping. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Saw your questions on my talk page... You are definitely on the right track when it comes to discribing historical inaccuracies in films ... Suggest you raise this at WT:No original research or at WP:NORN. By the way... we recently had some discussion on a similar issue at the NOR Noticeboard (see: Wikipedia:NORN#Factual accuracy of The Great Escape) results were inconclusive. Blueboar ( talk) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I addressed your concerns and I think the article is ready. Wildroot ( talk) 20:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I just reviewed Spider-Man 3 for GA Sweeps and found a few issues that need to be addressed. I wanted to alert you to the review since you're one of the main contributors. If the other issues are addressed, I can help with the dead links. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
My all-time favorite book, and one of my favorite films. Glad to see it at FAC and I look forward to reviewing it. -- Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Since I am new to the FAC process, what is your suggestion about copy-editing Fight Club? I feel like I can continue to make changes every time I go through the article. I checked with the Guild of Copy Editors, but they seem so backlogged. I'm willing to review every so often (it's funny how there's always something new to discover each time). I admit I rushed the article a tad to FAC because I hoped to request it as a front page article for October 15, 2009, the film's 10th anniversary. Didn't realize my writing wasn't so solid! :P Any suggestions would be great. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 00:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Erik, I expected to start a new section, but I see a conversation has already begun. Thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. With your blessing, I will continue to tweak the prose, but I have added my support. Let's hope that no major issues are unearthed by my fellow FAC regulars. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Did some minor tweaking and a bit of repositioning - while post-production and lab work may seem to be a visual effect in the literal sense, anything involving the overall "look" of the film is traditionally considered cinematography; the job doesn't stop at production. I've also clarified a few things - feel free to copy edit, of course, but I changed phrasing that I considered blatantly inaccurate. Unfortunately directors often talk a lot of tripe that they may genuinely believe. I recall hearing Mike Leigh claim that Vera Drake was shot on a special Kodak experimental film stock, only to find out months later, when speaking to his cinematographer, that it was actually shot on what was (by the time of release) the most popular film stock in use. Leigh's confusion arose from the fact that his film was amongst the first to use it when they were in production. These things happen. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've always been a bit confused by the two different headings. I think references is more apt, and looks more encyclopedic too. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings - I wonder if you have ever considered becoming an administrator? Or, more to the point, if you would have any use for the tools? I'd consider nominating you. I'm going to approach Steve as well. Let me know and we'll chat. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're bored or have some extra time, I'd love your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: First Contact/archive1. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes.. thousands of kids go to summer camp each year. But how many world famous entertainers, singers, actors, etc go to summer camp each year. Please undo your removal of the Camp Kawanhee For Boys reference in the Bryan Singer page. It is a noteworthy fact that he attended this summer camp. It would be a non-noteworthy fact if there were a reference to you and your summer camp experience because you are not a famous and influential person. Furthermore, expanding on the bio of famous individuals only adds to the pool of information from which we draw, if we quash that information then where do we end. For example, millions of kids go to college every year so should we delete those references too??? -- You Talkin' to Me??? ( talk) 15:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up - I'll take a look and reply with comments. Lugnuts ( talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the above page as you requested. In the future, however, please refrain from tagging userboxes you've made for speedy deletion if they are transcluded by other users. This causes widespread disruption because every userpage transcluding the userbox is also nominated for speedy deletion. Using <noinclude></noinclude> would be one way to circumvent the problem. However, it would be much more considerate to either migrate your userbox to another userspace (such as User:UBX/Future film follower), or to subst: the transclusions. If you need help with this task, please follow the instructions at WP:UBM. Best regards, IronGargoyle ( talk) 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This film is from 1937. Public domain in Argentina, Please get your facts straight before you start claim non free fair use. I've logged in this morning and found my talk page spammed, I'm not happy with the way you've removed images and left them all orphaned. If they don't qualify as fair use, PLEASE delete them to avoid spamming people. This is not want you want to see when logging in. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
← Nehrams2020 above mentioned the {{ bots}} template to avoid botspam; review the documentation, and your talk page can be happily bot-free. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey amigo, sorry I didn't mean to be snappy, just have 100kb of bot notices on logging in is well..... You are right to remove the images, I agree which is why having my talk page spammed for images which you justifiably removed is a bit annoying, I can't save them if you can't LOL!!! SOmetimes the images up for deletion are occasionally valid though. vandalism or something, but Nehrams idea sounds good! WHat I would do, is work through whatever list you are doing in a session, then afterwards pleace all of the images at images for deletion and say why they are all failing criteria. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I am amazed you aren't an admin. If ever you want to go for adminship, I'd happily support you... Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but you weren't to know about that anyway. Photographs become public domain in Argentina pre 1989 at the moment I believe its 20 years, not sure about film posters I, but judging by the number we have in the commons I'd say they are public domain too. A lot of Argentine posters and photos though are incorrectly licensed as fair use, especially the older ones. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your FA. I just read it and it's quite good. I saw the film on TV the other day for the second/third time: one of those deals where I couldn't watch the entire thing, but it showed again a couple nights later.
This is not intended to be a suggestion for the article, and I certainly skipped my chance when I neglected FAC for several weeks, but the second time I watched the film I was simultaneously struck with how I identified with the characters' frustration about being trapped, yet had no concept of how to relate to their expression of it with violence. The film seemed hypermasculine to me and I did not see any discussion in the article about this specifically, although Norton's character being emasculated and the homoerotic overtones were covered. This also struck me while watching Saving Private Ryan in the first awful opening scene, I'm a bit squeamish to say (lest I be branded a sexist pig) that the thought hammered in my head, this brutality is what comes of putting men in charge of politics and defense, and men go joyfully and faithfully into battle and end up picking their limbs up from a bloody beach. Perhaps Fight Club appealed so much to men that women did not review the film in terms of feminist art; after all, Brad Pitt with his shirt off, to women, seems the equivalent to advertising dictating your life. Why ask questions when Brad Pitt is half naked?
I wonder what a woman's expression of frustration would be like. An International Coffee Moment? How Stella Got Her Groove Back? Please. At any rate, this is a stream of consciousness. Well done on the article. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on the article passing FAC. It is well-deserved. Now can you do The Game and Seven? Thanks. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Can you go through the categories and remove the film lists from cluttering the top of the main year categories e.g Category:2008 films. Then can you create new categories e.g Category:Lists of 2008 films by country or language, Category:Lists of 1975 films by country or language etc. so all of the films linked in the year templates go neatly under one category.
P.S., oh did I nominate fight club for an FA, I can't remember I thought I didm because well, it has bene an FA for ages, you still had something to add right? that is very odd, I thought I nominated Fight Club about two weeks ago!! Either way I'm gald you did and it is now an FA. Congrats. I am Jack's raging bile duct.. Or maybe Jill's nipple? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL of course I don't want to change categories like that. All I asked is if you could just place the lists in a sub category. Never mind. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"Removed non-free image from article per WP:FILMNFI since it lacks backing of critical commentary to justify fair use"
what do you mean by critical commentary? Within the article Tag 26 under the image it said "Depiction of one of the characters of the short film Tag 26 looking at photographs of a dead couple." Doesn't that count as a commentary on the image? Can the image go back on the article if something is added? Fegor ( talk) 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Erik,
I promised to tell you when I would be creating
Up in the Air (film). Someone else just created the article. I've held off on creating the article since there is very information available on the film. The PR focuses almost exclusively on
George Clooney being in the film.--
Dan Dassow (
talk) 11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I have started a discussion at WT:Good article nominations#User:World Cinema Writer which is the forum for such concerns. Thank. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on passing FA with this article. I hope you know that I've regarded it as a quality article for some time and I'm glad you took the time to jump through the hoops!! Not realizing it had passed is, of course, the fault of Scarlett Johansson, whose GA status I've been trying to retain by bringing it up to 2009 standards from 2006. I hope Scarlett appreciates the effort, it's driving me to distraction (obviously). Wildhartlivie ( talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
On getting Fight club up to FA status! I'm very impressed. I hope you are going to try to get it on the main page for its 10 year anniversay release (October 15, 2009). Remember ( talk) 17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
How do you propose to proceed on this matter, Erik? Tony (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Erik, Bovineboy2008 has been moving some articles of films from the year of theatrical release to the year of its first festival screening (eg. Fanboys (2009 film) → Fanboys (2008 film)) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) is a little vague and just says use "the year of its first public release". Just to clarify, this excludes film festivals right? On the WP:NCF talk page, another editor has also said "public release" is too confusing. Maybe a few additional sentences could be added to the guideline to clarify this. (eg. "The year of public release is the year in which the film is released in cinemas in any country. This excludes film festival screenings. Where a film does not screen outside of film festivals, use the year of its first festival screening.") Thanks. - kollision ( talk) 10:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You may like to comment here: Talk:Film_series#Requested_move - Robsinden ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The alt text you wrote is very good. The only suggestion I can make is "briefer". Although opinions differ about the proper length, our blind reader has said more than once that brief is good. One possibility that I haven't raised in the forum yet is to put the longer description on the image page, and a shorter precis in the alt text. Maybe this sort of thing could be done with images like File:Doomsday poster.jpg? Eubulides 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am having a difficult time with Inurhead and content in The Hurt Locker. I have been consistent in finding this film a 2008 film, and Inurhead continually reverts me. S/He hasn't responded to the talk page before reverting and he has a serious case of owning the article. I may be wrong in my reasoning, but there isn't anyway to get him/her to discuss. Any help you could provide would be great. BOVINEBOY2008 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
4 pages you requested to be deleted as the author of these pages have been deleted. Happy editing! — JamesR ( talk) 05:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I know you have weighed in this subject before. User:Kevin5593 has insisted on including a difference that doesn't have a reliable source and will not talk to me about it. I don't want to edit war, but he doesn't seem to be responding to me. Could you help out? BOVINEBOY2008 04:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the conversation you leep removing is from a discussion approxiamately 1 week ago when we have a blowup regarding the use of the term Alternate Reality vs a Paralel Universe. if i'm wrong apologies however shouldn't that be left there so we can explain to people weve had that arguement and don't need to repeat it. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you've been on a bit of a crusade to remove bolding from casting sections. I've read WP:BOLDFACE and I don't think that bolding actor & character names, when they're followed by several lines of prose, goes against the MoS in any way. It's been our standard practice for a long time, and a majority of film FAs use this format. Has there been some new consensus formed that this is to be avoided? If so, could you please provide a link to the discussion? If not, then I respectfully request that you cease removing boldface on these grounds and instead start a discussion to establish consensus on the issue. (And if, indeed, consensus supports removing the boldface, then I suggest employing a bot to do it as there are probably hundreds of articles that will need to be fixed.) -- IllaZilla ( talk) 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you too busy or can you take a look at Watchmen (film)? The GA review asks for a copyedit on tense use problems. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 02:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sent a big one your way - let me know if you don't receive it shortly. Otherwise, I'll expect to hear from you there! :) Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 03:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I finally got my DVD collection of the Star Trek films so I've been adding better quality copies. I had a question about image choice, however. I want a picture of the Borg queen doing her disembodied floaty thing, but I'm trying to cram in more elements for the FUR if possible. Do you think a shot along the lines of File:Borgqueen.png is better (shows more of the effect) or something like File:S08-first contact borg queen.png (which shows more of the "Borg hell" engineering section)? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
How are you searching the Variety website for those American Beauty cites? I intended to throw the film's name into their search engine, sort by date, find the earliest mention of the film and work back from there to build a comprehensive "Development" section. This has worked exceedingly well for me for other films, but since Variety changed their website it isn't working properly. I can get as far back as 2002, but going beyond page 30 or so leads to nothing but a blank results page, despite it telling me there are hundreds of articles yet to be displayed. Steve T • C 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you removed the soundtrack listing from the article. Please help me understand how it violates WikiProject Albums' Track listing guideline so that I may avoid doing this again to film articles that do not have a seperate soundtrack page. DrNegative ( talk) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
On April 4, I removed a few paragraphs about post-Code films from Pre-Code Hollywood since the article is about American filmmaking prior to the inception of the Hays Code. These changes were reverted by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, for reasons he has cited on my talk page. Maybe I'm missing something, but his logic escapes me. He seems determined to combine facts pertaining to two different eras into one article, rather than leaving them in the individual articles in which I feel they belong. I'm not sure if I simply am not making my position clear, but it seems apparent he's not understanding what I'm trying to convey, i.e. details about pre-Code Hollywood belong in that article, details about developments that took place while the code was in effect belong in Hays Code, and whatever transpired after the code was abolished and the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system went into effect belongs in that article. If you care to weigh in, please feel free to do so. Thank you! LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 17:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This article already has support from myself and (seemingly) MelicansMatkin, and your concerns seem to have been more or less dealt with. Unless you have any specific objections, I intend to close the review and pass the article for A-Class in the next few days or so. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Erik has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, |
-- Dylan 620 Efforts · Toolbox 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Erik,I'm researching films and their wikis and I'd like to talk with the contributors. E.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cat_Soup#Nekojiru-sou_and_wiki I will come back to this page. Thank you; and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.252.62 ( talk) 08:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you can help me. I feel like I'm going around in circles with another user named Taran Wanderer T.W. at Talk: The Rescuers about the edits made. Can you see if there's a better way to communicate with her, or if I'm completely off base here? I don't know how else to explain it, and I'm growing tired of dealing with it. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. Cactusjump ( talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was going to nominate this template for deletion when I saw this discussion. Does this mean you don't mind/want to template to be deleted? It still is in use on some articles although I was tempted to remove it. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's Hunter Kahn, from the Tender Mercies FAC. As per some of the discussion there, I've started a Themes and Analyses section. As I said in the FAC, it's right now heavily dependent on one source and I am going to work on adding more, but I was hoping you could take a look at what's there now and let me provide me some feedback as to whether this is the correct direction I should be heading in. Thank you! — Hunter Kahn ( contribs) 18:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Thor (2010 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ThuranX ( talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comments on this proposal would be welcome! :) PC78 ( talk) 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I wish to create a sandbox for this film to be used for the actual article when filming begins. Where is the best place to create one (my userpage or somewhere else) for all of the project members and other wikipedians to contribute to it? Also where should I post links to it so that they may be aware of its existence? - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm neither the original author of the material you removed nor the least bit concerned with its deletion from the article, but I am curious about your rationale of "unreliable reviews". I mean, how do you get more reliable than Howard Waldrop, Neil Gaiman, Gary Westfahl and Locus? I must be missing something. If so, what is it? Viriditas ( talk) 12:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I hope to tackle Star Trek: First Contact next, but will probably have to wait until I get access to my university library again. I would knock old FAs, but I'm painfully aware some of my old video game articles are rather middling and I have to go back and spruce them up at some point :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Girolama already messaged me about that, and I see my error now. I'll read the page you linked though; I've never heard of that before, so thanks. Happy editing. Lәo( βǃʘʘɱ) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long, but I have finally replied to your last message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#New layout -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 02:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Aside from a regression back into the dilliances of video gaming, I'm working on the nitty-gritty painful exploits of writing critical reception for Star Trek: First Contact. I won't be able to hunt down any of the sourcing for the most part until I get within close physical proximity of my library next term, but I'm working on it :) Anyhow, I was wondering if you would be up to pulling together another list of refs when you have the chance (there is in no way any sort of reasonable deadline to get this done, it's just when you do.) I really don't know which Star Trek film I want to work on after First Contact, so I'm offering the selecting task to you; there's the metaphysical one, the one with the whales, the one that almost killed the franchise, the one Ronald Moore apologized for, the one where they search for the fountain of youth and come up against some mean plastic surgery-crazed aliens, and the one that broke the odd-numbered curse, in a bad way (I'm leaving the reboot to Alientraveller and those chaps.) Pick one, if you wish! Cheers, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Erik. Just wanted to say thanks to keeping an eye on Watchmen for the past few months. I'm still not ready to come back to full editing status on Wikipedia, but maybe sometime soon, who knows. I haven't looked at the Watchmen article since I stopped editing it (and I'm almost afraid to look, given how stressful it became near the end), but let me know if any particular problems have come up, or if you need to verify something I cited. I'm just curious as to how it's been holding up. Once again, it'll probably be a while before I come back to that article, so I appreciate all that you've done. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah... I am beginning to think this is a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT too. Still willing to give it another try, but my patience is running out. When someone tells me I am wrong about a policy I helped write it is hard to assume good faith. Blueboar ( talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I got you wrong on that one, Erik. I was obviously convinced you were making a mistake but I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. Thanks for hanging in there. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hope you had a great trip and are happy to return to the joys and pains of Wikipedia. The July article improvement drive isn't going as expected, but I guess I did kind of rush it in at the last minute. Maybe awards need to be mentioned at the beginning to inspire members to work on improving content. There's still half the month left though, so it's possible editors are still working on articles and waiting to nominate them. I just wanted to see if you wanted to recommend any changes to it or add an article of your own (if you wish). If not, no worries. Again, welcome back (although you didn't really leave! I'm still waiting for the day that I can go on vacation and not check my watchlist once, maybe I'd need to go to a deserted island...). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I've got access to JSTOR and LexisNexis, which is good enough for getting 75% of the stuff, but I need the bibliographic information for all the Cinefantastique/ et al that your databases have. I've got a good year or more's work left to finish up the remaining 6 articles, but this goes a long way to helping. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Saw your questions on my talk page... You are definitely on the right track when it comes to discribing historical inaccuracies in films ... Suggest you raise this at WT:No original research or at WP:NORN. By the way... we recently had some discussion on a similar issue at the NOR Noticeboard (see: Wikipedia:NORN#Factual accuracy of The Great Escape) results were inconclusive. Blueboar ( talk) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I addressed your concerns and I think the article is ready. Wildroot ( talk) 20:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I just reviewed Spider-Man 3 for GA Sweeps and found a few issues that need to be addressed. I wanted to alert you to the review since you're one of the main contributors. If the other issues are addressed, I can help with the dead links. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
My all-time favorite book, and one of my favorite films. Glad to see it at FAC and I look forward to reviewing it. -- Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Since I am new to the FAC process, what is your suggestion about copy-editing Fight Club? I feel like I can continue to make changes every time I go through the article. I checked with the Guild of Copy Editors, but they seem so backlogged. I'm willing to review every so often (it's funny how there's always something new to discover each time). I admit I rushed the article a tad to FAC because I hoped to request it as a front page article for October 15, 2009, the film's 10th anniversary. Didn't realize my writing wasn't so solid! :P Any suggestions would be great. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 00:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Erik, I expected to start a new section, but I see a conversation has already begun. Thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. With your blessing, I will continue to tweak the prose, but I have added my support. Let's hope that no major issues are unearthed by my fellow FAC regulars. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Did some minor tweaking and a bit of repositioning - while post-production and lab work may seem to be a visual effect in the literal sense, anything involving the overall "look" of the film is traditionally considered cinematography; the job doesn't stop at production. I've also clarified a few things - feel free to copy edit, of course, but I changed phrasing that I considered blatantly inaccurate. Unfortunately directors often talk a lot of tripe that they may genuinely believe. I recall hearing Mike Leigh claim that Vera Drake was shot on a special Kodak experimental film stock, only to find out months later, when speaking to his cinematographer, that it was actually shot on what was (by the time of release) the most popular film stock in use. Leigh's confusion arose from the fact that his film was amongst the first to use it when they were in production. These things happen. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've always been a bit confused by the two different headings. I think references is more apt, and looks more encyclopedic too. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings - I wonder if you have ever considered becoming an administrator? Or, more to the point, if you would have any use for the tools? I'd consider nominating you. I'm going to approach Steve as well. Let me know and we'll chat. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're bored or have some extra time, I'd love your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: First Contact/archive1. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes.. thousands of kids go to summer camp each year. But how many world famous entertainers, singers, actors, etc go to summer camp each year. Please undo your removal of the Camp Kawanhee For Boys reference in the Bryan Singer page. It is a noteworthy fact that he attended this summer camp. It would be a non-noteworthy fact if there were a reference to you and your summer camp experience because you are not a famous and influential person. Furthermore, expanding on the bio of famous individuals only adds to the pool of information from which we draw, if we quash that information then where do we end. For example, millions of kids go to college every year so should we delete those references too??? -- You Talkin' to Me??? ( talk) 15:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up - I'll take a look and reply with comments. Lugnuts ( talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the above page as you requested. In the future, however, please refrain from tagging userboxes you've made for speedy deletion if they are transcluded by other users. This causes widespread disruption because every userpage transcluding the userbox is also nominated for speedy deletion. Using <noinclude></noinclude> would be one way to circumvent the problem. However, it would be much more considerate to either migrate your userbox to another userspace (such as User:UBX/Future film follower), or to subst: the transclusions. If you need help with this task, please follow the instructions at WP:UBM. Best regards, IronGargoyle ( talk) 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This film is from 1937. Public domain in Argentina, Please get your facts straight before you start claim non free fair use. I've logged in this morning and found my talk page spammed, I'm not happy with the way you've removed images and left them all orphaned. If they don't qualify as fair use, PLEASE delete them to avoid spamming people. This is not want you want to see when logging in. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
← Nehrams2020 above mentioned the {{ bots}} template to avoid botspam; review the documentation, and your talk page can be happily bot-free. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey amigo, sorry I didn't mean to be snappy, just have 100kb of bot notices on logging in is well..... You are right to remove the images, I agree which is why having my talk page spammed for images which you justifiably removed is a bit annoying, I can't save them if you can't LOL!!! SOmetimes the images up for deletion are occasionally valid though. vandalism or something, but Nehrams idea sounds good! WHat I would do, is work through whatever list you are doing in a session, then afterwards pleace all of the images at images for deletion and say why they are all failing criteria. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I am amazed you aren't an admin. If ever you want to go for adminship, I'd happily support you... Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but you weren't to know about that anyway. Photographs become public domain in Argentina pre 1989 at the moment I believe its 20 years, not sure about film posters I, but judging by the number we have in the commons I'd say they are public domain too. A lot of Argentine posters and photos though are incorrectly licensed as fair use, especially the older ones. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your FA. I just read it and it's quite good. I saw the film on TV the other day for the second/third time: one of those deals where I couldn't watch the entire thing, but it showed again a couple nights later.
This is not intended to be a suggestion for the article, and I certainly skipped my chance when I neglected FAC for several weeks, but the second time I watched the film I was simultaneously struck with how I identified with the characters' frustration about being trapped, yet had no concept of how to relate to their expression of it with violence. The film seemed hypermasculine to me and I did not see any discussion in the article about this specifically, although Norton's character being emasculated and the homoerotic overtones were covered. This also struck me while watching Saving Private Ryan in the first awful opening scene, I'm a bit squeamish to say (lest I be branded a sexist pig) that the thought hammered in my head, this brutality is what comes of putting men in charge of politics and defense, and men go joyfully and faithfully into battle and end up picking their limbs up from a bloody beach. Perhaps Fight Club appealed so much to men that women did not review the film in terms of feminist art; after all, Brad Pitt with his shirt off, to women, seems the equivalent to advertising dictating your life. Why ask questions when Brad Pitt is half naked?
I wonder what a woman's expression of frustration would be like. An International Coffee Moment? How Stella Got Her Groove Back? Please. At any rate, this is a stream of consciousness. Well done on the article. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on the article passing FAC. It is well-deserved. Now can you do The Game and Seven? Thanks. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Can you go through the categories and remove the film lists from cluttering the top of the main year categories e.g Category:2008 films. Then can you create new categories e.g Category:Lists of 2008 films by country or language, Category:Lists of 1975 films by country or language etc. so all of the films linked in the year templates go neatly under one category.
P.S., oh did I nominate fight club for an FA, I can't remember I thought I didm because well, it has bene an FA for ages, you still had something to add right? that is very odd, I thought I nominated Fight Club about two weeks ago!! Either way I'm gald you did and it is now an FA. Congrats. I am Jack's raging bile duct.. Or maybe Jill's nipple? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL of course I don't want to change categories like that. All I asked is if you could just place the lists in a sub category. Never mind. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"Removed non-free image from article per WP:FILMNFI since it lacks backing of critical commentary to justify fair use"
what do you mean by critical commentary? Within the article Tag 26 under the image it said "Depiction of one of the characters of the short film Tag 26 looking at photographs of a dead couple." Doesn't that count as a commentary on the image? Can the image go back on the article if something is added? Fegor ( talk) 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Erik,
I promised to tell you when I would be creating
Up in the Air (film). Someone else just created the article. I've held off on creating the article since there is very information available on the film. The PR focuses almost exclusively on
George Clooney being in the film.--
Dan Dassow (
talk) 11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I have started a discussion at WT:Good article nominations#User:World Cinema Writer which is the forum for such concerns. Thank. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on passing FA with this article. I hope you know that I've regarded it as a quality article for some time and I'm glad you took the time to jump through the hoops!! Not realizing it had passed is, of course, the fault of Scarlett Johansson, whose GA status I've been trying to retain by bringing it up to 2009 standards from 2006. I hope Scarlett appreciates the effort, it's driving me to distraction (obviously). Wildhartlivie ( talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
On getting Fight club up to FA status! I'm very impressed. I hope you are going to try to get it on the main page for its 10 year anniversay release (October 15, 2009). Remember ( talk) 17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
How do you propose to proceed on this matter, Erik? Tony (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Erik, Bovineboy2008 has been moving some articles of films from the year of theatrical release to the year of its first festival screening (eg. Fanboys (2009 film) → Fanboys (2008 film)) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) is a little vague and just says use "the year of its first public release". Just to clarify, this excludes film festivals right? On the WP:NCF talk page, another editor has also said "public release" is too confusing. Maybe a few additional sentences could be added to the guideline to clarify this. (eg. "The year of public release is the year in which the film is released in cinemas in any country. This excludes film festival screenings. Where a film does not screen outside of film festivals, use the year of its first festival screening.") Thanks. - kollision ( talk) 10:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You may like to comment here: Talk:Film_series#Requested_move - Robsinden ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The alt text you wrote is very good. The only suggestion I can make is "briefer". Although opinions differ about the proper length, our blind reader has said more than once that brief is good. One possibility that I haven't raised in the forum yet is to put the longer description on the image page, and a shorter precis in the alt text. Maybe this sort of thing could be done with images like File:Doomsday poster.jpg? Eubulides 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am having a difficult time with Inurhead and content in The Hurt Locker. I have been consistent in finding this film a 2008 film, and Inurhead continually reverts me. S/He hasn't responded to the talk page before reverting and he has a serious case of owning the article. I may be wrong in my reasoning, but there isn't anyway to get him/her to discuss. Any help you could provide would be great. BOVINEBOY2008 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
4 pages you requested to be deleted as the author of these pages have been deleted. Happy editing! — JamesR ( talk) 05:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I know you have weighed in this subject before. User:Kevin5593 has insisted on including a difference that doesn't have a reliable source and will not talk to me about it. I don't want to edit war, but he doesn't seem to be responding to me. Could you help out? BOVINEBOY2008 04:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the conversation you leep removing is from a discussion approxiamately 1 week ago when we have a blowup regarding the use of the term Alternate Reality vs a Paralel Universe. if i'm wrong apologies however shouldn't that be left there so we can explain to people weve had that arguement and don't need to repeat it. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you've been on a bit of a crusade to remove bolding from casting sections. I've read WP:BOLDFACE and I don't think that bolding actor & character names, when they're followed by several lines of prose, goes against the MoS in any way. It's been our standard practice for a long time, and a majority of film FAs use this format. Has there been some new consensus formed that this is to be avoided? If so, could you please provide a link to the discussion? If not, then I respectfully request that you cease removing boldface on these grounds and instead start a discussion to establish consensus on the issue. (And if, indeed, consensus supports removing the boldface, then I suggest employing a bot to do it as there are probably hundreds of articles that will need to be fixed.) -- IllaZilla ( talk) 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you too busy or can you take a look at Watchmen (film)? The GA review asks for a copyedit on tense use problems. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 02:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sent a big one your way - let me know if you don't receive it shortly. Otherwise, I'll expect to hear from you there! :) Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 03:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I finally got my DVD collection of the Star Trek films so I've been adding better quality copies. I had a question about image choice, however. I want a picture of the Borg queen doing her disembodied floaty thing, but I'm trying to cram in more elements for the FUR if possible. Do you think a shot along the lines of File:Borgqueen.png is better (shows more of the effect) or something like File:S08-first contact borg queen.png (which shows more of the "Borg hell" engineering section)? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)