![]() | 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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Happy Holidays. Hope all is going well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Erik. Hope you had a great Christmas. I noticed this edit from you that you de-linked {{tl:FilmUS}} and {{tl:FilmUK}} from the infobox. I thought that was encouraged per Template:Infobox_Film. Has this changed? Thanks -- Mike Allen 23:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a quick question. On the film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, since it's not a US film. Do we still use the $ sign for the box office gross/budget, etc? -- Mike Allen 23:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: your changes to The Big Street, when did we stop using {{ FilmUS}} in the infobox and linking the year of release, film genre, and country of origin in the lead? I don't recall reading any discussion about this. Thanks, and happy holidays! LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 16:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing references, as you did in Jagernaut twice now already. Removal of references is not considered good editing on Wikipedia. If you have problems with these references, raise the issue on the article's talk page, and gain consensus before removing them. Not adhering to the rules of good editing on Wikipedia will possibly result in you being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Debresser ( talk) 16:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how's it going? It looks like I'm gone for a few days and you have so much fun that you appear on ANI twice! I've only been able to see some of the details on the occasional check-up on my watchlist on the iPhone. I'm glad to see that you're up to your past contribution levels. Anyway, try and keep the rambunctiousness to a minimum, you don't have to set a record to have the most visits there before the year-end, there's some editors you can't top! Hope you had a great holiday break and enjoy the new year. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the lead says that Rambo is an "American film" wouldn't the reader know that domestic refers to in that country? hbdragon88 ( talk) 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I just saw your comment regarding the lack of a cast section in the Fight Club article, and was hoping you could do me a favor. Will you take a look at the cast list in the Goodfellas article and tell me if you agree that it is entirely too long. Most of the characters listed are very minor, and played by little known actors. I argue for a very significant culling of that list. I am very interested in knowing what you think. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. In any min the move discussion for A Christmas Carol will be closing (less than an hour). Will an Admin be arriving shorty, or do I need to notify one? — Mike Allen 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I feel awarding a barnstar aknowledging your diligence in finding the Fangoria article is most deserved. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
I have responded toward your input at Talk:King_Cobra_(film)#Compromise_proposal and ask that you look in. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Another article about a film that will never be an FA. There is reference in a JoBlo article [1] to the film being written of in Fangoria... any suggestion on how I might find the Fangoria bit? I'd like a nice solid source for the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent work doing external links cleanup! It's nice to see others work on this task. Them From Space 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Erik, with respects, I wish to take issue with your mass removal of Allmovie as in El in so-far nearly a hundred articles. Can you direct me to the discussion where the removal of this specific link was discussed? Because franlky, all I have found so far is the instructions at Template:Infobox film that explain how and where to use it as an EL. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for recognizing my efforts on Thor (film). Also thank you for additional edits you contributed to the article. However I am not familiar with DYK process. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I posted a clear response to this discussion as to why it came about and what it is saying. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I was doing bit of maintenance work on Category:Upcoming films. I came too this article Born (film). The IMDB does not exist. I could not find any new information about this film. Should this article be sent to AFD?. Seeing how the prod which you added was removed last year. Thanks. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 05:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, as you may know, this FA article is on the front page today. Apparently several British anonymous users are taking issue with its being listed as an American film in the lead and infobox. Since you made the initial edit to note its being American in the lead, [3] (which I feel is quite correct) could you drop by the talk page and help me explain the reasoning to the discenting IPs? Talk:Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins#Nationality?. Thanks, -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
That's tricky. Maybe make the move request and let the general public comment on suggestions? I could see "Waz" (how it is written on the movie's site), "W delta Z" (how IMDb write it), or maybe just using the US name (which doesn't use a symbol). TJ Spyke 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all of them... :) Böri ( talk) 09:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I ask you not to humor Böri at Talk:Conspiracy Theory (film) any further and suggest that you remove your most recent comment. There is zero likelihood of any article-building discussion. The editor does not need an audience. Erik ( talk) 16:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik,
Thank you for going through the GA articles and making amendments, and I really am grateful that a valued editor like yourself contributes to ensuring that all budding articles are polished.
However, why can't the pictures, which represent something significant in a film be kept? and why can't the cast section be enboldened to make it stand out, especially in cases such as Aayirathil Oruvan]].
Examples of images in FAs:
Please note, I just want this for clarification, to see hwy images should be deleted and definitely not to insult your intelligence.
Regards, Universal Hero ( talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
That's great! At the conclusion of the drive, I'd like to get a collaboration department (re)started. I think that instead of everyone suggesting new ideas for working, that we already have a pool of articles to go off of (such as our core articles and anniversary ones such as this). I was planning on doing Dr. Strangelove down the line, so I'd probably want to start it in 2012-3 to ensure that is was FA quality by 2014 (that's what I call long-term planning!). I did remember you previously suggesting that we clean up our older FAs, but I didn't recall comparing the revisions. That's sounds like a good idea, and would definitely help in weeding out false statements and overlooked vandalism. I'm guessing that there are not going to be too many people eager to clean these articles up, but it is something that has to be done. We're losing our older FAs quite a bit, and if we plan to reach any sort of milestone goal, we need to hold onto these other ones (especially our core articles). I'd like to hear if any of the other coordinators have any plans as well, but I think using your list for a collaboration department will be a good idea. Since we are getting some people willing to participate in the Tag & Assess drive, I think that a contest department could also work, where we complete specific goals in quarterly/half-year/full-year installments. That could be a great way to push for higher amounts of GAs or for ensuring that all articles above a certain class have alt text, meet image requirements, etc. I think we're also going to need to push for expanded membership to increase participation. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ciao, Erik. An editor has brought up a concern in the Mystery Train (film) FAC you commented in about how the sound setting of the DVD is described. I've listed it as "Dolby Digital surround sound 5.1/2" based on the allmovie profile but it's been pointed out that this does not make much sense to the reader. Do you know how this might be explainable in simpler terms or how I might find out how best to deal with it? Cheers, Skomorokh 01:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I have just replied on the Legion (1997 film) page
The end credits state 1997
thanks
Chaosdruid ( talk) 07:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments on Template talk:SecretLife over the use of actors in a navigation box would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It was driving me nuts. Next time I'll do what I've done before: copy the references to a document page, where they can by seen by themselves. Thank you again, Shir-El too 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC) PS My mentor is on a Wiki Break: may I call on you regularly for help? I'm a good editor but a tyro at research, and I learn better from doing, not reading about it. How say you? Cheers!
Nice patronizing with the standard "Welcome to" template: I'm an editor here since 2005. And the Forman article needs to indicate that two of his films were groundbreaking. Try to improve stuff, not delete. Excuse me, Erik. Gregorik ( talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the film awards lists were just moved to fit the format of the above. I have no beef with it, but would prefer consistency; we have lists such as List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille and List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E that still reflect the old format. Should these be moved also? Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not know WHAT I'm doing wrong. Could you please fix it and show me so I don't do it again? I also have to chase down a reference that got lost in the edits. BTW, when editing text, why would the program scroll the page to an entirely different paragraph? It happened several times, first just jumping a line, then jumping paragraphs. Cheers! Shir-El too 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Question: I've added a section for YouTube links to his works. Would it be more appropriate to put the links in the Notes section of the Filmography? Thank you, Shir-El too 20:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I've been piecing together info for articles on the major Japanese pink film studios for a while, and will probably start them eventually... One qestion that's been on my mind though-- The oldest, and still one of the major pink studios is called "Shintōhō". It's not THAT Shintōhō, but (I don't have my info in front of me now)-- there is a relationship-- I think the founder of the old Shintōhō started the current one after the first one went bankrupt... Anyway. What to call the Pink Shintōhō? Shintōhō (pink film studio)? Shintōhō (2nd)? Shintōhō (the one that makes the dirty movies, not Super Giant? Is there a standard way to name articles on studios with the same name? Dekkappai ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to need any, let me know. I'm currently using my brother's database and he's in school for another two years. After that, we're going to need to recruit some more college students. Or start a member fund to purchase access. I think the membership is more likely... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That sucks, how do I know which ones are free? I thought images on Wikipedia commons could be used for Wikipedia in general, and that user pages didn't have restrictions for content. Or can I use images uploaded on Flirk instead? Stratogustav ( talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
the movie dates given in British sources are mostly one year earlier than the dates given at the IMDb. On the assumption that this implies different release years in each country, I used the UK dates. It may be a problem down the road with links like Every Day's a Holiday (1965 film), which I had down as 1964, and in future edits. Is there a policy on it? Cheers! Shir-El too 00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to draw your precious time away from your own pet projects, but if you have the time, energy and will I'm sure Star Trek III: The Search for Spock could benefit from any comments at FAC you could provide :). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Erik, I never called what he was doing vandalism that I can see. I thought I stayed pretty cool through the whole thing. Also two articles with bad references is still no justification for removing those links from over 15 articles. That and his edit summary "removed spam links". I assumed good faith on the three articles that I caught in my watchlist and left an edit summary of "No, they are reliable". That was before I seen the full list of what he was doing. That's when I quit assuming and start getting real. He still never said what was wrong with the other refs, that he thought he was doing WP a favor by removing. — Mike Allen 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The article Interpretations of Psycho has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. Blanchardb -
Me•
MyEars•
MyMouth- timed
16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have your say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cole Smithey. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've expanded the Citizen Kane article today, including several pieces from your Draft on it. Much appreciated if you could have a look at it and copy edit where necessary or suggest areas for improvement. yorkshiresky ( talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I know we're often... usually?... on the opposite sides of discussions, so I just wanted to thank you for that little show of moral support during my recent template trials. Took a little work but they were all saved and pink film fans now have about 2 dozen new film articles to enjoy, stubs though some may be. All's well that ends well :-) Regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 20:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I figured someone would delete that section eventually for that very reason but left it to more experienced editors to make the call. If and when other sources are actually talking about that sort of thing, would it be appropriate to add it back in with references (and keep it way way shorter than it started out, jeebus)? I can't recall seeing anything on similar twisty movies but I kind of like the idea of it, if references ever turn up. Millahnna (mouse) talk 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It's time for you to step aside. You're a detriment to the project and you can't handle the responsibility that was given you. Your understanding of the requirements of Wikipedia are beyond you at this time. Thank you for resigning promptly and gracefully. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 03:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
I am honored to award you the Editor's Barnstar for your contributions to the article on the film The Revengers... and am more than surprised that we have not had editing conflicts. Many thanks Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Erik-- In lieu of the Oscars, I watched this peerless classic of American cinema with my son last night. And now, poking around for info on it, I come across this you might want to put in the film project's arsenal for future use (once the great bolding controversy gets sorted out ;):
One more source and good ol' Mose could support an article-- Maybe not all character articles need be based on Pokemon... :-) Dekkappai ( talk) 18:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Per this comment; just in case you decided to remove the Lion King link from Elton John's navigation template later ... he wrote " Circle of Life", "I Just Can't Wait to Be King", "Be Prepared", "Hakuna Matata" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" from the film. A massive oversight on the IMDb's part, especially considering that "Circle of Life" won the Oscar for Best Original Song, beating out ... "Hakuna Matata" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" :-) Steve T • C 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
> I tried to start discussion at WT:MOSBOLD
here
Good.
> there is no creative way to go about resolving [the situation at WT:MOSFILM]].
There are always creatives ways to do things.
> The formatting usually pops up when we mix lists and prose ...
Apt Pupil (film)#Cast
That example is awful. Please change it so each entry fits on a single line, even when the width of the text area (including the width of the inset box) is 15 words. Another possibility would be to put full, linked actor names in the plot summary and remove actor names completely from the cast section. Then you could list the character name in bold when there's some descriptive text, and not mention it at all if there's not. That would make the parallel with definition lists even closer.
—
Codrdan (
talk)
01:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
That extra code is just hardcoded cruft. If you compare the two, there is no difference. It's better to remove it for compability (which is why the tool is set to do so). Nymf hideliho! 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Most of the code changes were done by the reflinks tool as 'common fixes'; for example, this restore by Nymf was first made by reflinks which also produced the edit summary. In that diff the removed background is pure syntax error and the other stuff is mere clutter with no effect. I did change some 90% to 95% as that's what their formats says to do (and has for the last 9 months). Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's here, "writer" section. Forgive me, I thought a consensus had been reached in the matter and that the parameters reflected this. Shall we keep them for now?– FunkyVoltron talk 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Erik. Thanks for that. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to note that it would have been REAL nice of you to check whether any worth-keeping changes had been made to the information about Transformers 3 after it was transplanted from the Revenge of the Fallen article, which actually had. Also, IMO the article had been perfectly fine up to this point when fanboys dropped in and turned into their playground, and I really didn't see the benefit in dropping a not-too-bad article in favor of a sloppily-written section just because we're two months (tops) from the film starting to shoot, but there you go. -- uKER ( talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you made a request here [4], so why is another editor allowed to continue unchallenged as in this edit [5] and apparently other such edits while the discussion continues? Call me confused;) - Josette ( talk) 06:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I used the same format that Jack Merridew was inserting into articles, with his wrinkles about the code removed. I went to that page to ascertain what films he was in that were of greatest consequence and noticed a messy table and inconsequential content, like what films his brother was in and other tidbits that should rightly be in the article body but not the table, and removed the "fact tag" from the section. We don't source filmography tables. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 18:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the list of references, I'll try and incorporate some of them. That's awesome that you got access to the LoC, suddenly my university and local libraries just don't seem that impressive. I'm not too knowledgeable on the available sources on this, but whatever you can get would be great. I wouldn't say this is a favorite film or anything, but I'm just tired of losing our FAs. Fortunately, this one shouldn't take too much effort to improve compared to prior delists. This article would definitely benefit from additional book sources, so we'll use whatever you can find, and then I'll try to sweep my local library after that. Two of the three book titles you listed are available at the SDSU library, so I may swing over there in the next few days. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I am very impressed with your comment at MQS' RfA, Erik. Once again, though we have disagreed many times, I've always found you reasonable (even when wrong ;) Hope I've never implied otherwise. Best regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't believe being an inclusiontist (the term is documented on the meta:Wiki) is a bad thing, until it reaches the "must save all articles" mentality, which admins must NOT have (they should be neutral). I seen he was up for admin and I remembered my encounter with him and how he perceived the notability guidelines. I wanted to add that to the discussion for anyone interested and I respect that you try to keep everyone civil and in check, but please quit telling me what kind of faith I assume, this has nothing to do with any faith, it was just my opinion. This reminds me what I came to Wikipedia to do, edit articles, not get involved in all those type discussions. Thank you for the reminder. :-) — Mike Allen 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Fight Club is an german thriller film see IMDB [6] or [7] . Greetz ( Zombie433 talk) 13:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
What did I say that was incivil? I pointed out that he claims a greater number against than exists and that he declared that color would not be used, his opinion alone against 5 who were speaking for it and said he can't declare that anything will not persist. He doesn't have the final word on anything. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It's been three weeks of circular talk and I've suggested that the discussion be wrapped up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Fandraltastic has created a great sandbox for this article. In your opinion at what point will this article meet notablilty requirements? Not that it is ready now but just wondering. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, had to disappear for an hour or so; thanks for picking up the slack. :-) I should be around most of the evening after tea. (That's tea, not tea. :p ) Steve T • C 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I haven't come across the weird stuff in match cut before either, but it seems to be supported by Wikipedia. These two paragraphs still have no citations, so that is why I left the notation in. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at this. -- uKER ( talk) 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Good job getting a response back, that's the hardest part. You can tell the author that we just need her permission to release the image under one of the compatible licenses. I usually recommend that they reply back "I agree to release [image name] under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 or the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0." (the author can choose whichever of the two licenses they prefer). OTRS actually prefers that the author just change the license on the Flickr page itself, so if you can convince her to do that, the permission wouldn't have to be forwarded to OTRS, you'd just need to add the {{flickrreview}} template to the image's page. You can also tell her that the image would be used for including on Tse's page, as well as possibly others. Since it would be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, other language Wikipedias would be able to use it also on a variety of pages while crediting her. Let me know if you want further clarification, and I'll get back to you later tonight. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 14:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of and appreciate your concerns at the AFD. But in further expansion and sourcing, I am finding that what might have been considered simply an "upcoming Heckerling project" a few months ago, is now receiving media attention and coverage because of the "names" now confirmed as starring on the project... Sigourney Weaver [8] [9]... Krysten Ritter [10] [11]... Alicia Silverstone [12] [13]... thus moving coverage away from Heckerling alone. With production asserted to begin a few weeks, and in considering that the current one-sentence mention in the Heckerling article is incorrect in its stating she "directed" rather than the correct "will direct", might you consider incubation rather than a redirect? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 7 April 2010 (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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Happy Holidays. Hope all is going well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Erik. Hope you had a great Christmas. I noticed this edit from you that you de-linked {{tl:FilmUS}} and {{tl:FilmUK}} from the infobox. I thought that was encouraged per Template:Infobox_Film. Has this changed? Thanks -- Mike Allen 23:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a quick question. On the film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, since it's not a US film. Do we still use the $ sign for the box office gross/budget, etc? -- Mike Allen 23:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: your changes to The Big Street, when did we stop using {{ FilmUS}} in the infobox and linking the year of release, film genre, and country of origin in the lead? I don't recall reading any discussion about this. Thanks, and happy holidays! LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 16:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing references, as you did in Jagernaut twice now already. Removal of references is not considered good editing on Wikipedia. If you have problems with these references, raise the issue on the article's talk page, and gain consensus before removing them. Not adhering to the rules of good editing on Wikipedia will possibly result in you being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Debresser ( talk) 16:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how's it going? It looks like I'm gone for a few days and you have so much fun that you appear on ANI twice! I've only been able to see some of the details on the occasional check-up on my watchlist on the iPhone. I'm glad to see that you're up to your past contribution levels. Anyway, try and keep the rambunctiousness to a minimum, you don't have to set a record to have the most visits there before the year-end, there's some editors you can't top! Hope you had a great holiday break and enjoy the new year. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the lead says that Rambo is an "American film" wouldn't the reader know that domestic refers to in that country? hbdragon88 ( talk) 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I just saw your comment regarding the lack of a cast section in the Fight Club article, and was hoping you could do me a favor. Will you take a look at the cast list in the Goodfellas article and tell me if you agree that it is entirely too long. Most of the characters listed are very minor, and played by little known actors. I argue for a very significant culling of that list. I am very interested in knowing what you think. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. In any min the move discussion for A Christmas Carol will be closing (less than an hour). Will an Admin be arriving shorty, or do I need to notify one? — Mike Allen 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I feel awarding a barnstar aknowledging your diligence in finding the Fangoria article is most deserved. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
I have responded toward your input at Talk:King_Cobra_(film)#Compromise_proposal and ask that you look in. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Another article about a film that will never be an FA. There is reference in a JoBlo article [1] to the film being written of in Fangoria... any suggestion on how I might find the Fangoria bit? I'd like a nice solid source for the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent work doing external links cleanup! It's nice to see others work on this task. Them From Space 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Erik, with respects, I wish to take issue with your mass removal of Allmovie as in El in so-far nearly a hundred articles. Can you direct me to the discussion where the removal of this specific link was discussed? Because franlky, all I have found so far is the instructions at Template:Infobox film that explain how and where to use it as an EL. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for recognizing my efforts on Thor (film). Also thank you for additional edits you contributed to the article. However I am not familiar with DYK process. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 13:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I posted a clear response to this discussion as to why it came about and what it is saying. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I was doing bit of maintenance work on Category:Upcoming films. I came too this article Born (film). The IMDB does not exist. I could not find any new information about this film. Should this article be sent to AFD?. Seeing how the prod which you added was removed last year. Thanks. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 05:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, as you may know, this FA article is on the front page today. Apparently several British anonymous users are taking issue with its being listed as an American film in the lead and infobox. Since you made the initial edit to note its being American in the lead, [3] (which I feel is quite correct) could you drop by the talk page and help me explain the reasoning to the discenting IPs? Talk:Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins#Nationality?. Thanks, -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
That's tricky. Maybe make the move request and let the general public comment on suggestions? I could see "Waz" (how it is written on the movie's site), "W delta Z" (how IMDb write it), or maybe just using the US name (which doesn't use a symbol). TJ Spyke 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all of them... :) Böri ( talk) 09:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I ask you not to humor Böri at Talk:Conspiracy Theory (film) any further and suggest that you remove your most recent comment. There is zero likelihood of any article-building discussion. The editor does not need an audience. Erik ( talk) 16:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik,
Thank you for going through the GA articles and making amendments, and I really am grateful that a valued editor like yourself contributes to ensuring that all budding articles are polished.
However, why can't the pictures, which represent something significant in a film be kept? and why can't the cast section be enboldened to make it stand out, especially in cases such as Aayirathil Oruvan]].
Examples of images in FAs:
Please note, I just want this for clarification, to see hwy images should be deleted and definitely not to insult your intelligence.
Regards, Universal Hero ( talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
That's great! At the conclusion of the drive, I'd like to get a collaboration department (re)started. I think that instead of everyone suggesting new ideas for working, that we already have a pool of articles to go off of (such as our core articles and anniversary ones such as this). I was planning on doing Dr. Strangelove down the line, so I'd probably want to start it in 2012-3 to ensure that is was FA quality by 2014 (that's what I call long-term planning!). I did remember you previously suggesting that we clean up our older FAs, but I didn't recall comparing the revisions. That's sounds like a good idea, and would definitely help in weeding out false statements and overlooked vandalism. I'm guessing that there are not going to be too many people eager to clean these articles up, but it is something that has to be done. We're losing our older FAs quite a bit, and if we plan to reach any sort of milestone goal, we need to hold onto these other ones (especially our core articles). I'd like to hear if any of the other coordinators have any plans as well, but I think using your list for a collaboration department will be a good idea. Since we are getting some people willing to participate in the Tag & Assess drive, I think that a contest department could also work, where we complete specific goals in quarterly/half-year/full-year installments. That could be a great way to push for higher amounts of GAs or for ensuring that all articles above a certain class have alt text, meet image requirements, etc. I think we're also going to need to push for expanded membership to increase participation. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ciao, Erik. An editor has brought up a concern in the Mystery Train (film) FAC you commented in about how the sound setting of the DVD is described. I've listed it as "Dolby Digital surround sound 5.1/2" based on the allmovie profile but it's been pointed out that this does not make much sense to the reader. Do you know how this might be explainable in simpler terms or how I might find out how best to deal with it? Cheers, Skomorokh 01:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I have just replied on the Legion (1997 film) page
The end credits state 1997
thanks
Chaosdruid ( talk) 07:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments on Template talk:SecretLife over the use of actors in a navigation box would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It was driving me nuts. Next time I'll do what I've done before: copy the references to a document page, where they can by seen by themselves. Thank you again, Shir-El too 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC) PS My mentor is on a Wiki Break: may I call on you regularly for help? I'm a good editor but a tyro at research, and I learn better from doing, not reading about it. How say you? Cheers!
Nice patronizing with the standard "Welcome to" template: I'm an editor here since 2005. And the Forman article needs to indicate that two of his films were groundbreaking. Try to improve stuff, not delete. Excuse me, Erik. Gregorik ( talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the film awards lists were just moved to fit the format of the above. I have no beef with it, but would prefer consistency; we have lists such as List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille and List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E that still reflect the old format. Should these be moved also? Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not know WHAT I'm doing wrong. Could you please fix it and show me so I don't do it again? I also have to chase down a reference that got lost in the edits. BTW, when editing text, why would the program scroll the page to an entirely different paragraph? It happened several times, first just jumping a line, then jumping paragraphs. Cheers! Shir-El too 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Question: I've added a section for YouTube links to his works. Would it be more appropriate to put the links in the Notes section of the Filmography? Thank you, Shir-El too 20:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I've been piecing together info for articles on the major Japanese pink film studios for a while, and will probably start them eventually... One qestion that's been on my mind though-- The oldest, and still one of the major pink studios is called "Shintōhō". It's not THAT Shintōhō, but (I don't have my info in front of me now)-- there is a relationship-- I think the founder of the old Shintōhō started the current one after the first one went bankrupt... Anyway. What to call the Pink Shintōhō? Shintōhō (pink film studio)? Shintōhō (2nd)? Shintōhō (the one that makes the dirty movies, not Super Giant? Is there a standard way to name articles on studios with the same name? Dekkappai ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to need any, let me know. I'm currently using my brother's database and he's in school for another two years. After that, we're going to need to recruit some more college students. Or start a member fund to purchase access. I think the membership is more likely... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That sucks, how do I know which ones are free? I thought images on Wikipedia commons could be used for Wikipedia in general, and that user pages didn't have restrictions for content. Or can I use images uploaded on Flirk instead? Stratogustav ( talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
the movie dates given in British sources are mostly one year earlier than the dates given at the IMDb. On the assumption that this implies different release years in each country, I used the UK dates. It may be a problem down the road with links like Every Day's a Holiday (1965 film), which I had down as 1964, and in future edits. Is there a policy on it? Cheers! Shir-El too 00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to draw your precious time away from your own pet projects, but if you have the time, energy and will I'm sure Star Trek III: The Search for Spock could benefit from any comments at FAC you could provide :). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Erik, I never called what he was doing vandalism that I can see. I thought I stayed pretty cool through the whole thing. Also two articles with bad references is still no justification for removing those links from over 15 articles. That and his edit summary "removed spam links". I assumed good faith on the three articles that I caught in my watchlist and left an edit summary of "No, they are reliable". That was before I seen the full list of what he was doing. That's when I quit assuming and start getting real. He still never said what was wrong with the other refs, that he thought he was doing WP a favor by removing. — Mike Allen 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The article Interpretations of Psycho has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. Blanchardb -
Me•
MyEars•
MyMouth- timed
16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have your say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cole Smithey. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've expanded the Citizen Kane article today, including several pieces from your Draft on it. Much appreciated if you could have a look at it and copy edit where necessary or suggest areas for improvement. yorkshiresky ( talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I know we're often... usually?... on the opposite sides of discussions, so I just wanted to thank you for that little show of moral support during my recent template trials. Took a little work but they were all saved and pink film fans now have about 2 dozen new film articles to enjoy, stubs though some may be. All's well that ends well :-) Regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 20:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I figured someone would delete that section eventually for that very reason but left it to more experienced editors to make the call. If and when other sources are actually talking about that sort of thing, would it be appropriate to add it back in with references (and keep it way way shorter than it started out, jeebus)? I can't recall seeing anything on similar twisty movies but I kind of like the idea of it, if references ever turn up. Millahnna (mouse) talk 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It's time for you to step aside. You're a detriment to the project and you can't handle the responsibility that was given you. Your understanding of the requirements of Wikipedia are beyond you at this time. Thank you for resigning promptly and gracefully. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 03:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
I am honored to award you the Editor's Barnstar for your contributions to the article on the film The Revengers... and am more than surprised that we have not had editing conflicts. Many thanks Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Erik-- In lieu of the Oscars, I watched this peerless classic of American cinema with my son last night. And now, poking around for info on it, I come across this you might want to put in the film project's arsenal for future use (once the great bolding controversy gets sorted out ;):
One more source and good ol' Mose could support an article-- Maybe not all character articles need be based on Pokemon... :-) Dekkappai ( talk) 18:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Per this comment; just in case you decided to remove the Lion King link from Elton John's navigation template later ... he wrote " Circle of Life", "I Just Can't Wait to Be King", "Be Prepared", "Hakuna Matata" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" from the film. A massive oversight on the IMDb's part, especially considering that "Circle of Life" won the Oscar for Best Original Song, beating out ... "Hakuna Matata" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" :-) Steve T • C 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
> I tried to start discussion at WT:MOSBOLD
here
Good.
> there is no creative way to go about resolving [the situation at WT:MOSFILM]].
There are always creatives ways to do things.
> The formatting usually pops up when we mix lists and prose ...
Apt Pupil (film)#Cast
That example is awful. Please change it so each entry fits on a single line, even when the width of the text area (including the width of the inset box) is 15 words. Another possibility would be to put full, linked actor names in the plot summary and remove actor names completely from the cast section. Then you could list the character name in bold when there's some descriptive text, and not mention it at all if there's not. That would make the parallel with definition lists even closer.
—
Codrdan (
talk)
01:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
That extra code is just hardcoded cruft. If you compare the two, there is no difference. It's better to remove it for compability (which is why the tool is set to do so). Nymf hideliho! 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Most of the code changes were done by the reflinks tool as 'common fixes'; for example, this restore by Nymf was first made by reflinks which also produced the edit summary. In that diff the removed background is pure syntax error and the other stuff is mere clutter with no effect. I did change some 90% to 95% as that's what their formats says to do (and has for the last 9 months). Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's here, "writer" section. Forgive me, I thought a consensus had been reached in the matter and that the parameters reflected this. Shall we keep them for now?– FunkyVoltron talk 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Erik. Thanks for that. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to note that it would have been REAL nice of you to check whether any worth-keeping changes had been made to the information about Transformers 3 after it was transplanted from the Revenge of the Fallen article, which actually had. Also, IMO the article had been perfectly fine up to this point when fanboys dropped in and turned into their playground, and I really didn't see the benefit in dropping a not-too-bad article in favor of a sloppily-written section just because we're two months (tops) from the film starting to shoot, but there you go. -- uKER ( talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you made a request here [4], so why is another editor allowed to continue unchallenged as in this edit [5] and apparently other such edits while the discussion continues? Call me confused;) - Josette ( talk) 06:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I used the same format that Jack Merridew was inserting into articles, with his wrinkles about the code removed. I went to that page to ascertain what films he was in that were of greatest consequence and noticed a messy table and inconsequential content, like what films his brother was in and other tidbits that should rightly be in the article body but not the table, and removed the "fact tag" from the section. We don't source filmography tables. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 18:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the list of references, I'll try and incorporate some of them. That's awesome that you got access to the LoC, suddenly my university and local libraries just don't seem that impressive. I'm not too knowledgeable on the available sources on this, but whatever you can get would be great. I wouldn't say this is a favorite film or anything, but I'm just tired of losing our FAs. Fortunately, this one shouldn't take too much effort to improve compared to prior delists. This article would definitely benefit from additional book sources, so we'll use whatever you can find, and then I'll try to sweep my local library after that. Two of the three book titles you listed are available at the SDSU library, so I may swing over there in the next few days. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I am very impressed with your comment at MQS' RfA, Erik. Once again, though we have disagreed many times, I've always found you reasonable (even when wrong ;) Hope I've never implied otherwise. Best regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't believe being an inclusiontist (the term is documented on the meta:Wiki) is a bad thing, until it reaches the "must save all articles" mentality, which admins must NOT have (they should be neutral). I seen he was up for admin and I remembered my encounter with him and how he perceived the notability guidelines. I wanted to add that to the discussion for anyone interested and I respect that you try to keep everyone civil and in check, but please quit telling me what kind of faith I assume, this has nothing to do with any faith, it was just my opinion. This reminds me what I came to Wikipedia to do, edit articles, not get involved in all those type discussions. Thank you for the reminder. :-) — Mike Allen 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Fight Club is an german thriller film see IMDB [6] or [7] . Greetz ( Zombie433 talk) 13:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
What did I say that was incivil? I pointed out that he claims a greater number against than exists and that he declared that color would not be used, his opinion alone against 5 who were speaking for it and said he can't declare that anything will not persist. He doesn't have the final word on anything. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It's been three weeks of circular talk and I've suggested that the discussion be wrapped up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Fandraltastic has created a great sandbox for this article. In your opinion at what point will this article meet notablilty requirements? Not that it is ready now but just wondering. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, had to disappear for an hour or so; thanks for picking up the slack. :-) I should be around most of the evening after tea. (That's tea, not tea. :p ) Steve T • C 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I haven't come across the weird stuff in match cut before either, but it seems to be supported by Wikipedia. These two paragraphs still have no citations, so that is why I left the notation in. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at this. -- uKER ( talk) 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Good job getting a response back, that's the hardest part. You can tell the author that we just need her permission to release the image under one of the compatible licenses. I usually recommend that they reply back "I agree to release [image name] under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 or the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0." (the author can choose whichever of the two licenses they prefer). OTRS actually prefers that the author just change the license on the Flickr page itself, so if you can convince her to do that, the permission wouldn't have to be forwarded to OTRS, you'd just need to add the {{flickrreview}} template to the image's page. You can also tell her that the image would be used for including on Tse's page, as well as possibly others. Since it would be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, other language Wikipedias would be able to use it also on a variety of pages while crediting her. Let me know if you want further clarification, and I'll get back to you later tonight. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 14:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of and appreciate your concerns at the AFD. But in further expansion and sourcing, I am finding that what might have been considered simply an "upcoming Heckerling project" a few months ago, is now receiving media attention and coverage because of the "names" now confirmed as starring on the project... Sigourney Weaver [8] [9]... Krysten Ritter [10] [11]... Alicia Silverstone [12] [13]... thus moving coverage away from Heckerling alone. With production asserted to begin a few weeks, and in considering that the current one-sentence mention in the Heckerling article is incorrect in its stating she "directed" rather than the correct "will direct", might you consider incubation rather than a redirect? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)