![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
You seem to have experience with this article so I was wondering if you could give your opinion on something. Currently, I'm engaged in an unfortunate edit war with an unregistered user who wants to add a section about Spider-Man 4 and the Spider-Man reboot. Besides being an unreferenced and awkwardly written section, I argue that Spider-Man 3 has nothing to do with the reboot and shouldn't have it mentioned in the article. And it doesn't have anything to do with it since its reception (box office or critical) did not lead to the reboot. Also, Spider-Man 4 is well-covered in the Spider-Man (film series) article. Can you offer your thoughts? -5- ( talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Erik - I'll have a look at those contributions from BB later. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Erik, Steve seems to be MIA; I hope he's well. Could you find time to review the issues at Talk:Villa del Cine, and suggest to me an equivalent FA that models an appropriate structure for this article's sections? I am hoping to be able to work on it tonight or tomorrow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Erik! Sorry about the edit on the Black Swan article. I think I accidently edited an old version of the article which restored several edits. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Apols Erik for posting on the main project page. I was waaaay too tired to be writing anything on WP. *Mental note to self* - thanks Spanglej ( talk) 02:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! A discussion about the use of {{Cinema of XXXX}} (like {{ Cinema of France}}) in individual film articles has opened here. Your input would be greatly appreciated! BOVINEBOY 2008 08:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Just dropped in to say goodbye and thanks for your kindness early on, Erik. An article I created Anthony Hayes (actor) has been vandalised by someone from inside the machine with a false accusation. I explained the situation on the talk page Talk:Anthony Hayes (actor), but the explanation has been ignored. My Satisfaction vs Aggravation pendulum has swung too far to the right. I can see no simple path to resolving this and I've got other things to spend my time on. So, thank you and good night. Kwah-LeBaire ( talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you have not responded to me about this problem, I will keep on changing it to the right wording. Also, I'm sure you've heard of the Three revert rule. If you continue to disagree, it can be taken to Arbitration which I am happy to do. Anyways, I shall keep changing your false info until an administrator has a look. And as always, stay frosty. Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 20:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Your right, Warner Bros. is an American studio. But as I said before, about a quarter of it is Canadian, and should be left as Canadian-American. Research it. Also, if you continue to argue, and none of us agree, it is best to remove weather it is American, or Canadian for good, and finish this arguement. Thank You. Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I won't bother wasting my time with you anymore. For I know competly that this children's movie is Canadian-American, it is not that important to me as it is to you. Yes, I will end this argument, and act like this never happened, and I will let you leave it to just American. (which you absolutley know is incorrect). Stay American; an ignorant American. (I will NOT respond to any more of your comments, nor will I read them.) Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Future reference of related discussion for self: Unexplained blanking. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that the election has concluded, I'd like to hand over the reins to you (it was more like I was keeping the seat warm...) as I'm assuming you're interested in the role as lead. If so, congrats on another term of service. With the close tallies of votes, do we plan on sticking with the agreed on five coordinators or including a sixth with Bovineboy's one less vote? Or is that something we'd like to agree on with the coordinator talk page? I'll leave the coordinator page updating up to you to setup the coordinator organization. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
-- The Utahraptor Talk to me/ Contributions 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
While appreciating your work trimming the article, I believe you have removed content that gave a decent impression of just how silly the entire cat show / cat owner relationship is, and how widely is held that view. Interesting thing about DYKs... for consideration of older articles, they want a 5x expansion. More, they want an interesting hook that draws a reader into reading the article itself. I ask that you now consider doing one of two things, either return enough informative content, edited to your personal satisfaction, to bring the article back up to its former 5x expansion (some 550 words), or go to the
article's DYK nomination, and <s>strike it out</s> with the explanantion that the article no longer qualifies due to your improvements, as I'll be glad to let you take the credit for my embarassment at it now no longer qualifying for a DYK. Thank you.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Having just seen the news, I wish to extend my congratulations. WikiProject Films is lucky to have you. Best wishes, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Why should the years not be seperated? There should be consistency with the templates, your edits to not make any sense.-- TheMovieBuff ( talk) 16:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Might want to read this buddy: Wikipedia:Canvassing. Not allowed to contact Koavf.-- TheMovieBuff ( talk) 17:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is days late but congrats on the your coordinator election. Whether we are in agreement or butting heads I know that you have the best interests of the fiilmproject (and the rest of Wikipedia) at heart. Best wishes in the year ahead and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Erik. I was wondering if you could review some of the sources I added on the talk page of Chain Saw, when you have some time. They seemed interesting and useful to me.-- The Taerkasten ( talk) 19:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik - I've added a section on the co-ordinators page here. Input welcome. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Say listen, how about actually assisting to better an article for a change? Honking the clown alarm about trolls did not save the Harry Potter film article from being corrected, to listing both titles near each other, which was all I wanted. And I am not the only one... but the only one with the courage, apparently. I want you to know I resent your accusation that I am a "troll". 76.195.86.50 ( talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
For that I apologize--I see that the article about the film does list the title in a proper way. Absolutely not, the alias titles do not need to be listed the same way throughout! That's as bad as leaving alias titles to one side. That was never my proposition, and I never suggested it.
You cannot believe the beatings I've gotten at the article for the original novel, over this issue. You know, it makes no matter to me about ego or errors. With no ego to speak of, I can be pretty stupid. However, there is no argument against a valid and proper point of order. In any case, please accept my apology. 76.195.86.50 ( talk) 06:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity what is the threshold of number of reviews a site should have before adding it to an article about an unreleased film? Or should we just wait until the film is released before adding such scores? Thank you.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for your comments regarding the film and how to improve it. I am not sure how to make a booklist/reference list for books / chapters regarding the film, but it's a great idea and those are some really useful links that I could also incorporate into the themes section (especially bits lacking in sources). I haven't been editing on Wikipedia for a long time so I'm not sure how to make a book reference list, but when I learn I would be happy to do it! Thanks so much, Ashton 29 ( talk) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
<ref>Rigney 2008, p. 100</ref>
. When readers see this footnote in the "Notes" section, they know to look up the source reference in the "References" section. The article for American Beauty uses {{
Harvnb}} templates, which means that it shows the regular footnote details and provides a link that when clicked, jumps to the reference. You do not have to include the coverage for the article to be a Good Article, but since one of the Featured Article criteria is comprehensiveness, it is recommended to eventually include that coverage. Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (
talk |
contribs) 13:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Hi, I just joined the WikiProject:Films list. I figured I would stop in and introduce myself to you since you are the Project Coordinator. I'm Rob Mauro, and hope to contribute to cleaning up, expanding or correcting the articles on equipment (notably, grip equipment), and some of the production positions. I'm the Line Producer and Gaffer for Retro Film Studios (production company behind Star Trek: New Voyages) and hope to be able to help out in those areas where I have experience. Let me know if there's anywhere else I can help out (except of course, on the STP2 related pages). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/ CNTRB 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You disrespected everyone whose opinion you ignored, Erik. You might consider finding a good mirror and learning how it's used. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 05:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, yes I have made changes to the plot summary, but I wasn't vandalizeing it... I just edited it, and added more detail. So I don't know what your going on about. I also added a new image. If you have looked on the discussion page, I said that someone can change it back to the other image if they prefer it not to stay. So what are you talking about? thanks Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 00:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay then! I have see this movie, so I know what happens and everything, so could you possibly put my changes back? :) thanks Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey this is just a heads up. I am not sure of how the itatic title thing works. But a lot of Chronicles of Narnia related articles haven't responded to being italic on their title names yet. − Jhenderson 777 20:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
italic title = force
to the bottom of the infobox. See
MOS:FILM#Article italics for more. Let me know if any other articles need addressing!
Erik (
talk |
contribs) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)I noticed the infobox is back, are you okay with this? -- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestions were really good...I hope you'll check out my reasoning for sticking to the films almost 100% for citations here. This article does not need to be over-referenced. Suggestions about the 'real-world' impact of the Jedi characters belongs in another article, not here. 75.21.144.68 ( talk) 16:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Erik. Thanks much for your edits recently to The Brute Man. As you probably saw, I've nominated it for GAN. I'm not sure if you get involved with the review process all that often or not, but since it appears you've been looking over the article a bit over the last couple days, I thought I'd check if maybe you'd like to conduct the review? If not, no biggie, just checking. Thanks again! — Hun ter Ka hn 01:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for getting back to you on this, I forgot about it yesterday and remembered in the middle of work today. I was also thinking of something along the lines of WP:MIL's page. The templates provide a more inviting structure, especially with the tabs. I'm not that creative, so hopefully someone who specializes in user page/project page layouts would be willing to take a stab at it. Maybe a few different mockups would allow members to choose a favorite. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Your recent revert probably should have been done manually with an edit summary instead of with the rollback feature. Rollback should only be used for vandalism and other uses listed here. Otherwise, you should AGF and provide an explanation of why you reverted the edit. Thanks. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Question about the 'floating' cast table you suggested. How would I make one appear like this in an article? Thanks. Mike Allen 00:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Your advocacy of the removal of the current events info from the article was a mistake, Erik. You allowed several newer editors with a less than complete understanding of wiki policy to further cement that lack of understanding. Not your finest hour. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 11:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Erik. Thanks so much for your review of The Brute Man! I'm not used to GAN reviews going so quickly! I also had a question for you on an unrelated film-related article I am working on. I've been working on Charles B. Pierce and am nearing completion on it, but there was one element of the article I wasn't sure whether should be added or not. Basically, this is an independent filmmaker who often works with low budgets. As a result, he often has a bit of a reputation for making schlock and his movies sometimes get bad reviews. Now, it's not like an Ed Wood kind of deal where he's universally known for his bad films, but he does often get bad reviews. What I'm wondering is should I be including that criticism in the article when I talk about his individual movies? My original thought was it was more appropriate to include those criticisms in the individual articles about his films. Or, should I include some of the criticism of Pierce's direction/technical elements in this article. Let me know what you think. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 14:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
PROGRAM ALERT-Hi again. I wanted to make you aware of a new program that began last night on Turner Classic Movies. It is entitled "Moguls & Movie Stars" and follows the history of film form the late 1800's to the late 1960's. The first episode was very impressive - lots of detail, pics and clips. Most notable were strikingly cleaned up and sharp prints of some of the famous Edison and Méliès shorts. Here is a link for more info [3]. It is a seven part series with new episodes airing on Monday nights and then repeats occur several times through the rest of the week. If this doesn't fit your schedule I am sure that it will be released on DVD or will be available on the net eventually. Well worth viewing if you are interested. MarnetteD | Talk 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
A question about awards in the lead of articles came up today here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Phrase .22Academy Award-winning.22 in article lead. While I gave them an answer based on what I knew and found my info is probably not complete. If you have a moment you might post a more accurate answer to the question than I have. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik, I perfectly understand, but the cite is still incorrectly outputted because the cite template is malformed. FWiW, I have already added the refs to the article, using the MLA style guide. Bzuk ( talk) 15:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It might be a moot point now that only studio is being listed, but in the quote from the article you referenced ( http://www.webcitation.org/5siEvxbDI), Cross Creek and Fox Searchlight are mentioned as the final financiers to join the project, not as distributors. In funding the project, Fox Searchlight also acquired distribution rights. Cross Creek do not distribute films anywhere in the world; the reference to 'in association with Fox Searchlight' is because the two companies collaborated in their work as financiers. It is not unusual for production companies who are not distributing a film to be given the 'presents' credit; see the recent poster for Fair Game, where production companies River Road and Participant share the credit with distributor Summit Entertainment. -- Krevans ( talk) 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a user over at the 2012 and beyond in film article that wants to add sections to the page that cover films with no confirmed release dates. I say they shouldn't be on there, and have been reverting the edits. The user tries to make his case here. Can you weigh in on this? -5- ( talk) 17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a sad outcome, I hope he comes back; but thank you for taking action, it was long overdue. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 01:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Where are we at with the renaming of WikiProject Film? I did some page moves yesterday, are we all sorted with the rest now? PC78 ( talk) 11:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you think User:Ben-Bopper could be Pricer1980? Mike Allen 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Mike, if you're interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pricer1980. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have any time, I'd appreciate your thoughts on Star Trek IV so far before I make the final push for FA-readiness ( Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/archive1). Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 20:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Erik. I hope that your wikibreak is going well. Earlier this year you worked on getting a poster pic for our Waking Ned page that did not use the US title. Tonight I just came across this pic [4] at IMDb. I don't know if it will be possible to add it but I thought I would make you aware of it just in case. I apologize for saddling you with this when you return but I am a technoignoramus and have no idea how to upload pics or give them all of the rationales that are required to be used here at wikiP. Best wishes and I look forward to your return. MarnetteD | Talk 03:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Erik. I added a new fair use image to The Brute Man, and wanted to run it by you since you did the GAN review. It's the one under the MST3K section. I feel it more than qualifies for fair use because its absense would be detrimental to the understanding of readers who are not familiar with the show Mystery Science Theater 3000, and a simple description of the show (with characters watching the film) doesn't convey the understanding as well as seeing it does. What do you think? — Hun ter Ka hn 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like more opinions on this AFD if you don't mind. − Jhenderson 777 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
GA and FA I noticed that you've been the main contributor to The Fountain and Black Swan (film) and I wanted to know if you are interested in collaborating to make the former FA-class and work on the latter for GA whenever the dust settles and it's stable. If so, please respond on my talk. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Peer review/The Fountain/archive2 Thanks, Erik. Please e-mail that chapter to me (the "M" in my signature.) For what it's worth, I'm trying to get a hold of the picture book/screenplay to see if that has anything useful and if you're interested in the commentary that Aronofsky self-released, you can find it all over the place--I downloaded it when it was first released and I can get it to you if you're interested. Also, thanks for the heads-up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Multimedia; I might just make a clip for this. Needless to say, if this ends up FA, it will mostly be due to your hard work. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Erik, would you mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? We need an uninvolved editor with good experience regarding Wikipedia film articles weighing in. I always respect your opinion on such topics, whether you agree with me or not.
Oh, and I forgot to say months ago, "Welcome back." Flyer22 ( talk) 22:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film seems to be building up requests with no replies. Please be so kind as to provided comments to those requests. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 10:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I actually just discovered and started using WebCite recently, after running into some linkrot problems. It definitely comes in handy. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I probably won't have the drive to do much on that article, but the heads-up is nice. Also, I just moved and have yet to get home Internet access, so my contributions have been spotty lately. The Fountain is still a priority, though. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Erik, it's Hunter Kahn. I previously nominated Into Temptation (film) for FA, but it failed due to inactivity after it failed to generate many reviews of either support or oppose. The FA delegate suggested I try to get some of the film-oriented editors involved before bringing it back to FAC. I wonder if perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at it some time soon, before I bring it back to FAC (which I would expect to happen in a week or two, maybe), with the hopes that you might weigh in then? It's a relatively short article, but if you are too busy, it's no biggie. Let me know what you think. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I noticed that you added the Article Feedback Tool pilot to American Beauty (film). I'm glad that you're enthusiastic about the feature. However, we have a set of criteria being used to determine which articles can be added to the pilot. Unfortunately, American Beauty does not fit the profile, so I have removed the category from the article.
We have a work group to discuss the tool and the project. You can join it here.-- Jorm (WMF) ( talk) 05:59, 3 January 2011 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
You seem to have experience with this article so I was wondering if you could give your opinion on something. Currently, I'm engaged in an unfortunate edit war with an unregistered user who wants to add a section about Spider-Man 4 and the Spider-Man reboot. Besides being an unreferenced and awkwardly written section, I argue that Spider-Man 3 has nothing to do with the reboot and shouldn't have it mentioned in the article. And it doesn't have anything to do with it since its reception (box office or critical) did not lead to the reboot. Also, Spider-Man 4 is well-covered in the Spider-Man (film series) article. Can you offer your thoughts? -5- ( talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Erik - I'll have a look at those contributions from BB later. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Erik, Steve seems to be MIA; I hope he's well. Could you find time to review the issues at Talk:Villa del Cine, and suggest to me an equivalent FA that models an appropriate structure for this article's sections? I am hoping to be able to work on it tonight or tomorrow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Erik! Sorry about the edit on the Black Swan article. I think I accidently edited an old version of the article which restored several edits. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Apols Erik for posting on the main project page. I was waaaay too tired to be writing anything on WP. *Mental note to self* - thanks Spanglej ( talk) 02:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! A discussion about the use of {{Cinema of XXXX}} (like {{ Cinema of France}}) in individual film articles has opened here. Your input would be greatly appreciated! BOVINEBOY 2008 08:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Just dropped in to say goodbye and thanks for your kindness early on, Erik. An article I created Anthony Hayes (actor) has been vandalised by someone from inside the machine with a false accusation. I explained the situation on the talk page Talk:Anthony Hayes (actor), but the explanation has been ignored. My Satisfaction vs Aggravation pendulum has swung too far to the right. I can see no simple path to resolving this and I've got other things to spend my time on. So, thank you and good night. Kwah-LeBaire ( talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you have not responded to me about this problem, I will keep on changing it to the right wording. Also, I'm sure you've heard of the Three revert rule. If you continue to disagree, it can be taken to Arbitration which I am happy to do. Anyways, I shall keep changing your false info until an administrator has a look. And as always, stay frosty. Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 20:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Your right, Warner Bros. is an American studio. But as I said before, about a quarter of it is Canadian, and should be left as Canadian-American. Research it. Also, if you continue to argue, and none of us agree, it is best to remove weather it is American, or Canadian for good, and finish this arguement. Thank You. Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I won't bother wasting my time with you anymore. For I know competly that this children's movie is Canadian-American, it is not that important to me as it is to you. Yes, I will end this argument, and act like this never happened, and I will let you leave it to just American. (which you absolutley know is incorrect). Stay American; an ignorant American. (I will NOT respond to any more of your comments, nor will I read them.) Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Future reference of related discussion for self: Unexplained blanking. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that the election has concluded, I'd like to hand over the reins to you (it was more like I was keeping the seat warm...) as I'm assuming you're interested in the role as lead. If so, congrats on another term of service. With the close tallies of votes, do we plan on sticking with the agreed on five coordinators or including a sixth with Bovineboy's one less vote? Or is that something we'd like to agree on with the coordinator talk page? I'll leave the coordinator page updating up to you to setup the coordinator organization. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
-- The Utahraptor Talk to me/ Contributions 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
While appreciating your work trimming the article, I believe you have removed content that gave a decent impression of just how silly the entire cat show / cat owner relationship is, and how widely is held that view. Interesting thing about DYKs... for consideration of older articles, they want a 5x expansion. More, they want an interesting hook that draws a reader into reading the article itself. I ask that you now consider doing one of two things, either return enough informative content, edited to your personal satisfaction, to bring the article back up to its former 5x expansion (some 550 words), or go to the
article's DYK nomination, and <s>strike it out</s> with the explanantion that the article no longer qualifies due to your improvements, as I'll be glad to let you take the credit for my embarassment at it now no longer qualifying for a DYK. Thank you.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q. 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Having just seen the news, I wish to extend my congratulations. WikiProject Films is lucky to have you. Best wishes, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Why should the years not be seperated? There should be consistency with the templates, your edits to not make any sense.-- TheMovieBuff ( talk) 16:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Might want to read this buddy: Wikipedia:Canvassing. Not allowed to contact Koavf.-- TheMovieBuff ( talk) 17:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is days late but congrats on the your coordinator election. Whether we are in agreement or butting heads I know that you have the best interests of the fiilmproject (and the rest of Wikipedia) at heart. Best wishes in the year ahead and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Erik. I was wondering if you could review some of the sources I added on the talk page of Chain Saw, when you have some time. They seemed interesting and useful to me.-- The Taerkasten ( talk) 19:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik - I've added a section on the co-ordinators page here. Input welcome. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Say listen, how about actually assisting to better an article for a change? Honking the clown alarm about trolls did not save the Harry Potter film article from being corrected, to listing both titles near each other, which was all I wanted. And I am not the only one... but the only one with the courage, apparently. I want you to know I resent your accusation that I am a "troll". 76.195.86.50 ( talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
For that I apologize--I see that the article about the film does list the title in a proper way. Absolutely not, the alias titles do not need to be listed the same way throughout! That's as bad as leaving alias titles to one side. That was never my proposition, and I never suggested it.
You cannot believe the beatings I've gotten at the article for the original novel, over this issue. You know, it makes no matter to me about ego or errors. With no ego to speak of, I can be pretty stupid. However, there is no argument against a valid and proper point of order. In any case, please accept my apology. 76.195.86.50 ( talk) 06:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity what is the threshold of number of reviews a site should have before adding it to an article about an unreleased film? Or should we just wait until the film is released before adding such scores? Thank you.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for your comments regarding the film and how to improve it. I am not sure how to make a booklist/reference list for books / chapters regarding the film, but it's a great idea and those are some really useful links that I could also incorporate into the themes section (especially bits lacking in sources). I haven't been editing on Wikipedia for a long time so I'm not sure how to make a book reference list, but when I learn I would be happy to do it! Thanks so much, Ashton 29 ( talk) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
<ref>Rigney 2008, p. 100</ref>
. When readers see this footnote in the "Notes" section, they know to look up the source reference in the "References" section. The article for American Beauty uses {{
Harvnb}} templates, which means that it shows the regular footnote details and provides a link that when clicked, jumps to the reference. You do not have to include the coverage for the article to be a Good Article, but since one of the Featured Article criteria is comprehensiveness, it is recommended to eventually include that coverage. Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (
talk |
contribs) 13:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Hi, I just joined the WikiProject:Films list. I figured I would stop in and introduce myself to you since you are the Project Coordinator. I'm Rob Mauro, and hope to contribute to cleaning up, expanding or correcting the articles on equipment (notably, grip equipment), and some of the production positions. I'm the Line Producer and Gaffer for Retro Film Studios (production company behind Star Trek: New Voyages) and hope to be able to help out in those areas where I have experience. Let me know if there's anywhere else I can help out (except of course, on the STP2 related pages). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/ CNTRB 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You disrespected everyone whose opinion you ignored, Erik. You might consider finding a good mirror and learning how it's used. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 05:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, yes I have made changes to the plot summary, but I wasn't vandalizeing it... I just edited it, and added more detail. So I don't know what your going on about. I also added a new image. If you have looked on the discussion page, I said that someone can change it back to the other image if they prefer it not to stay. So what are you talking about? thanks Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 00:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay then! I have see this movie, so I know what happens and everything, so could you possibly put my changes back? :) thanks Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey this is just a heads up. I am not sure of how the itatic title thing works. But a lot of Chronicles of Narnia related articles haven't responded to being italic on their title names yet. − Jhenderson 777 20:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
italic title = force
to the bottom of the infobox. See
MOS:FILM#Article italics for more. Let me know if any other articles need addressing!
Erik (
talk |
contribs) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)I noticed the infobox is back, are you okay with this? -- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestions were really good...I hope you'll check out my reasoning for sticking to the films almost 100% for citations here. This article does not need to be over-referenced. Suggestions about the 'real-world' impact of the Jedi characters belongs in another article, not here. 75.21.144.68 ( talk) 16:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Erik. Thanks much for your edits recently to The Brute Man. As you probably saw, I've nominated it for GAN. I'm not sure if you get involved with the review process all that often or not, but since it appears you've been looking over the article a bit over the last couple days, I thought I'd check if maybe you'd like to conduct the review? If not, no biggie, just checking. Thanks again! — Hun ter Ka hn 01:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for getting back to you on this, I forgot about it yesterday and remembered in the middle of work today. I was also thinking of something along the lines of WP:MIL's page. The templates provide a more inviting structure, especially with the tabs. I'm not that creative, so hopefully someone who specializes in user page/project page layouts would be willing to take a stab at it. Maybe a few different mockups would allow members to choose a favorite. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Your recent revert probably should have been done manually with an edit summary instead of with the rollback feature. Rollback should only be used for vandalism and other uses listed here. Otherwise, you should AGF and provide an explanation of why you reverted the edit. Thanks. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Question about the 'floating' cast table you suggested. How would I make one appear like this in an article? Thanks. Mike Allen 00:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Your advocacy of the removal of the current events info from the article was a mistake, Erik. You allowed several newer editors with a less than complete understanding of wiki policy to further cement that lack of understanding. Not your finest hour. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 11:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Erik. Thanks so much for your review of The Brute Man! I'm not used to GAN reviews going so quickly! I also had a question for you on an unrelated film-related article I am working on. I've been working on Charles B. Pierce and am nearing completion on it, but there was one element of the article I wasn't sure whether should be added or not. Basically, this is an independent filmmaker who often works with low budgets. As a result, he often has a bit of a reputation for making schlock and his movies sometimes get bad reviews. Now, it's not like an Ed Wood kind of deal where he's universally known for his bad films, but he does often get bad reviews. What I'm wondering is should I be including that criticism in the article when I talk about his individual movies? My original thought was it was more appropriate to include those criticisms in the individual articles about his films. Or, should I include some of the criticism of Pierce's direction/technical elements in this article. Let me know what you think. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 14:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
PROGRAM ALERT-Hi again. I wanted to make you aware of a new program that began last night on Turner Classic Movies. It is entitled "Moguls & Movie Stars" and follows the history of film form the late 1800's to the late 1960's. The first episode was very impressive - lots of detail, pics and clips. Most notable were strikingly cleaned up and sharp prints of some of the famous Edison and Méliès shorts. Here is a link for more info [3]. It is a seven part series with new episodes airing on Monday nights and then repeats occur several times through the rest of the week. If this doesn't fit your schedule I am sure that it will be released on DVD or will be available on the net eventually. Well worth viewing if you are interested. MarnetteD | Talk 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
A question about awards in the lead of articles came up today here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Phrase .22Academy Award-winning.22 in article lead. While I gave them an answer based on what I knew and found my info is probably not complete. If you have a moment you might post a more accurate answer to the question than I have. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik, I perfectly understand, but the cite is still incorrectly outputted because the cite template is malformed. FWiW, I have already added the refs to the article, using the MLA style guide. Bzuk ( talk) 15:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It might be a moot point now that only studio is being listed, but in the quote from the article you referenced ( http://www.webcitation.org/5siEvxbDI), Cross Creek and Fox Searchlight are mentioned as the final financiers to join the project, not as distributors. In funding the project, Fox Searchlight also acquired distribution rights. Cross Creek do not distribute films anywhere in the world; the reference to 'in association with Fox Searchlight' is because the two companies collaborated in their work as financiers. It is not unusual for production companies who are not distributing a film to be given the 'presents' credit; see the recent poster for Fair Game, where production companies River Road and Participant share the credit with distributor Summit Entertainment. -- Krevans ( talk) 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a user over at the 2012 and beyond in film article that wants to add sections to the page that cover films with no confirmed release dates. I say they shouldn't be on there, and have been reverting the edits. The user tries to make his case here. Can you weigh in on this? -5- ( talk) 17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a sad outcome, I hope he comes back; but thank you for taking action, it was long overdue. Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 01:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Where are we at with the renaming of WikiProject Film? I did some page moves yesterday, are we all sorted with the rest now? PC78 ( talk) 11:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you think User:Ben-Bopper could be Pricer1980? Mike Allen 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Mike, if you're interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pricer1980. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have any time, I'd appreciate your thoughts on Star Trek IV so far before I make the final push for FA-readiness ( Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/archive1). Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 20:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Erik. I hope that your wikibreak is going well. Earlier this year you worked on getting a poster pic for our Waking Ned page that did not use the US title. Tonight I just came across this pic [4] at IMDb. I don't know if it will be possible to add it but I thought I would make you aware of it just in case. I apologize for saddling you with this when you return but I am a technoignoramus and have no idea how to upload pics or give them all of the rationales that are required to be used here at wikiP. Best wishes and I look forward to your return. MarnetteD | Talk 03:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Erik. I added a new fair use image to The Brute Man, and wanted to run it by you since you did the GAN review. It's the one under the MST3K section. I feel it more than qualifies for fair use because its absense would be detrimental to the understanding of readers who are not familiar with the show Mystery Science Theater 3000, and a simple description of the show (with characters watching the film) doesn't convey the understanding as well as seeing it does. What do you think? — Hun ter Ka hn 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like more opinions on this AFD if you don't mind. − Jhenderson 777 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
GA and FA I noticed that you've been the main contributor to The Fountain and Black Swan (film) and I wanted to know if you are interested in collaborating to make the former FA-class and work on the latter for GA whenever the dust settles and it's stable. If so, please respond on my talk. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Peer review/The Fountain/archive2 Thanks, Erik. Please e-mail that chapter to me (the "M" in my signature.) For what it's worth, I'm trying to get a hold of the picture book/screenplay to see if that has anything useful and if you're interested in the commentary that Aronofsky self-released, you can find it all over the place--I downloaded it when it was first released and I can get it to you if you're interested. Also, thanks for the heads-up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Multimedia; I might just make a clip for this. Needless to say, if this ends up FA, it will mostly be due to your hard work. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Erik, would you mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? We need an uninvolved editor with good experience regarding Wikipedia film articles weighing in. I always respect your opinion on such topics, whether you agree with me or not.
Oh, and I forgot to say months ago, "Welcome back." Flyer22 ( talk) 22:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film seems to be building up requests with no replies. Please be so kind as to provided comments to those requests. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 10:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I actually just discovered and started using WebCite recently, after running into some linkrot problems. It definitely comes in handy. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I probably won't have the drive to do much on that article, but the heads-up is nice. Also, I just moved and have yet to get home Internet access, so my contributions have been spotty lately. The Fountain is still a priority, though. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Erik, it's Hunter Kahn. I previously nominated Into Temptation (film) for FA, but it failed due to inactivity after it failed to generate many reviews of either support or oppose. The FA delegate suggested I try to get some of the film-oriented editors involved before bringing it back to FAC. I wonder if perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at it some time soon, before I bring it back to FAC (which I would expect to happen in a week or two, maybe), with the hopes that you might weigh in then? It's a relatively short article, but if you are too busy, it's no biggie. Let me know what you think. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I noticed that you added the Article Feedback Tool pilot to American Beauty (film). I'm glad that you're enthusiastic about the feature. However, we have a set of criteria being used to determine which articles can be added to the pilot. Unfortunately, American Beauty does not fit the profile, so I have removed the category from the article.
We have a work group to discuss the tool and the project. You can join it here.-- Jorm (WMF) ( talk) 05:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)