![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Hello Erik! Thanks for participating on the Kanthaswamy page discussion. I would like to also apologise if any of my statements are harsh to you. Sorry from the bottom of my heart. Thanks again man! Yours faithfully, Kotak kasut. 13:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this site on your spam page while searching for links. There seems to be an effort by a string of IPs to add links to the site (usually as references) over the past few weeks. The site doesn't appear to qualify as such, especially given their disclaimer:
"Information presented on our Service may contain errors or inaccuracies, and we make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, correctness or reliability of the content of our Service."
I'm working through the list, but thought you should know in case you see any pop up. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I see that you removed this from the Halloween 6 page which surprised me, but I just wanted to let you know that this version of the film exists so you should not have taken it off the page. Some of the extended clips in this uncut version of the Theatrical Cut are even featured on Youtube. As for the information at Movie-Censorship.com most of the time it's correct in it's information as it provides pictures of these deleted footage of films and alternate takes in TV versions. It features pictures that show the extended footage in the Director's Cut of this movie that is in fact in there. The scenes such as the operating room massacre with the beheading of Dr. Wynn and the nurse getting gutted aren't shown in pictures, but everything else in there is and are in fact correct. So I don't see why it can't remain linked on the page. It's the only website that supports what's shown in the Director's Cut. It's the version of Halloween 6 that has little known to to a lot of people and this information would help them. Again, this cut DOES EXIST. The pictures shown at the link prove this.
Jabrona ( talk 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Erik, if you have time, could you drop in at this discussion on how to get the Horror WikiProject back on it's feet? Thanks, -- TÆRkast ( Communicate) 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Any reference help would be appreciated, thanks. AaronY ( talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I am really sad, that you deleted every bit of my effort regarding different versions of movies with the reason that is "link spam". I did not post any links without giving some explanations and information to the database here. I just backed up my texts with a source like it should be. Some other admins even thought my links and texts are interesting and just reformatted them a bit. Some of my texts in my opinion were detailed and informative, like the one I posted in the Armageddon article. I think it is useful and interesting information for readers, that there is a director's cut on the market, especially when the most releases only contain the shorter version. Censorship in general is a topic which is always interesting regarding every art like movies, books, comics etc. To delete such information on an encyclopaedia in my opinion is wrong. But in the end you have more pull here then me, so I can't change it.
To cite a sentence from the terms of use of movie-censorship.com is really not very convincing. This is just a standard "Terms of Use"-text, which you can find on many sites. Of course the makers of the comparisons on movie-censorship.com can not guarantee that they do not make any mistakes or that they won't oversee some cuts. Especially when some movies have more then 500 cuts like the Millenium-trilogy. In the end they are only human. That is the reason for the ToU-text.
Maybe you can give it a second thought. Anyway, have a nice.
Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.64.254 ( talk) 15:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Erik, there was a mini-consensus on the Salt talk page (and here) to include the Director's Cut since the ending is very different from the theatrical. This was mainly because editors was changing the plot to the Director's Cut version, repeatedly. — Mike Allen 01:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Note This discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard concluded that the site does not constitute a reliable source per the project's guidelines. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey I just recently nominated The Last Airbender for good article status and I am just asking you to help out in any way you could to make it that way. Listening to some of the comments in the review should help. Jhenderson 777 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The image of the East German military base in the Wikipedia article of Equilibrium movie, is not just any non-free image taken by a camera, but it is a frame extracted from the original movie itself. It appears that this kind of non-free image can be legally posted at Wikipedia article, because the fair use policy allows it. This context significantly differs from posting at Wikipedia the photos taken by an individual photographer who owns the copyrights of the image. Generally the film industry authorizes individual frames extracted from the movie to be posted at Wikipedia for informative purposes. This is why after careful deliberation I had added the image of the abandoned East German military base to the Wikipedia article of Equilibrium. In this case, if you agree with this assessment, please let us put back the image at the Wikipedia article. Best Regards, Futuristicarchitect ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Please help me understand why this review would be considered spam? The website is accurate as is the text of the review. I was also able to find many other reviews by Popzara quoted on Wikipedia including "And Yet It Moves", "Ys", and "Sonic the Hedgehog 4" - the quote was not mine, but I'm fairly new to editing and I'd like to understand this undo a bit better. - Thanks! Skacey42 ( talk) 19:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Per your suggestion in talk page discussion, I have moved the page to Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe it's protocol to inform editors involved in a dispute when there is action being taken, so I just would like to point out Talk:Acceptance_of_Golden_Raspberry_Awards_by_recipients#RfC:_Removal_of_sourced_info to you. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a policy that states when movies of the same name should be disambiguated? Sometimes I've seen all movies disambiguated; other times I've seen one made the primary topic. For instance, the remakes The Omen, The Karate Kid, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween II are disambiguated, and the original films are the primary topic. Likewise, Psycho (film) was up until a few months ago carried the (1960 film) disambig and a RM failed to re-disambiguate it. Oh yeah, and I just noticed this now, but The Aviator (2004 film) was recently moved back to just The Aviator despite there being a film of the same title made in 1985. I just readded a disambig for the 1985 film. I bring this up because I noticed you movied Season of the Witch (film) to Season of the Witch (1972 film). It just seems there's no real standard and people arbitrarily move pages as they see fit until someone else decides to change it. hbdragon88 ( talk) 06:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 19 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Season of the Witch (2011 film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the newly released film Season of the Witch was scheduled to be released in March 2010, but the original distributor, Lionsgate, pulled it five weeks before the release date? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
See here for main topic. Jhenderson 777 01:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Bot_requests I wrote a majority of the robot. I still have a few more features I want to add but I don't understand what you want for the talk pages. I know the bot request is kinda old so have things changed since then? I'm not sure how to proceed after the bot is written, although I have a lot of testing to do. Also it's good knowledge for you to have that I'm writing the bot. -- Peppage tlk 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You are aware that there is a incubator for Dark Knight Rises right? I was involved with formatting that a little and I was also involved with helping the redirection page being protected so if you want it unprotected I will request it unprotected for you. I also have a userpage draft still lying around when I didn't know there was a article incubator of it that I can use to format it as a film project type article if you like it to be a article before filming. Jhenderson 777 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Change of plans this is what it looks like. I put it back as a redirection for cautious reasons. Jhenderson 777 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll ask you to please reconsider and revert that edit, because I have a compelling reason for those image additions. I noted that they were all low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. As an example, this screenshot from Avatar's page displays a similar usage/rationale, and was not deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg DeWaine ( talk) 02:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I have an idea for the Film Project. With the Acadmey Awards nominations tomorrow, I would really like to see (at least) the films nominated for Best Picture, Best Documentary, Best Animated Picture, and perhaps some other categories to get up to B-class or better. I don't have much experience in expanding articles, so its something that I would like to work on. I don't know if this is something I should bring up at the Project talk page, but was wondering if at least you would think it is a good idea. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI - apparently this rule has been repealed. Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Erik. Please stop introducing weasel words and removing sourced information from the article. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 02:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Erik, have you seen the move discussion at Talk:Fight Club (film)? -- Andy Walsh (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Erik,
I'm confused with the complexity of wikipedia but I really want to help make the existing articles on films much better. Some topics I would like to elaborate on are camera placement and movement, cinematography (depth of field in shots, frame rates and lighting) and editing (time intervals between cuts, transitions between shots (ex. dissolves, wipes)) for films.
Who can I reach out to for all my questions?
Here are a few...
How can I email a user? According to a wikipedia article, I go to the toolbox, but I don't even see a link to email you.
Why am I only allowed to submit .ogv files for video clips? Why not flash files?
Will you adopt me or can you recommend me to be adopted by a coordinator in WikiProject Film?
Thanks, Sharrukin Sharrukin josephson ( talk) 12:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Erik,
Thanks for reply. Apparently I had to activate my account to be able to send emails. I'm slowly learning my way around editing and will eventually start contributing (just give me some time.) Thanks for your support. As for now, I don't think I need to be adopted. Sharrukin josephson ( talk) 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Erik,
I was on the Hanna wiki page for the film and saw that you added the poster image to the page. However, I also noticed that the image is only visible when you're logged in to Wikipedia, and not to anyone who just visits the page. I'm still learning about adding images to pages, etc and was wondering if there was a setting that you could choose to make it visible for anyone who visits the page without being logged in?
Thanks! Stacey123 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOM123Wiki ( talk • contribs)
I'll ask you to please reconsider and revert that edit, because I have a compelling reason for those image additions. I noted that they were all low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. As an example, this screenshot from Avatar's page displays a similar usage/rationale, and was not deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg DeWaine ( talk) 02:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hugo_Chavez_in_Brazil-1861.jpeg - In this particular photo, we have Hugo Chavez waving. Now I ask, why is it inserted in the article? Most people know who Hugo Chavez is, and what he looks like. But just in case if you didn't, I believe the article adequately and thoroughly describes who he is, and how his influence relates to the film. There is absolutely no reason to insert this pic. The picture shows a middle age Hispanic male waving his hand. What is unique or contextually significant about this particular photograph? We don't need a photo to show us what Hugo Chavez looks like, nor do we need a photo to show what a middle aged Hispanic male looks like. This screenshot appears to fall in the category of being 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theateroutsidepub_cropped_.jpg - Here we have a photo of a film theater where the movie was screened at. Same story as the previous pic. The paragraph adequately and thoroughly describes the situation with the film being screened at this particular theater with protests and theater reception. Now I ask again, why do we have this pic for? Although the average reader might not know exactly what the exterior of this particular theater looks like; it has a brick facade and looks like any other average theater. There are tens of thousands of theaters that look just like it. So basically, we don't need a pic of this forum because the paragraph describes the situation, and we don't need a photograph of any film theater because we know what a film theater looks like. You can toss this image in the category of 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abigail_Breslin.jpg - Here we have a photograph of a young actress in the film. Please tell me, what is unique or contextually significant about a portrait shot of a 14-year old girl smiling? The actress is mentioned throughout the article, and we know how she relates to the film. Is there any compelling reason to show us what she looks like? Although we might not have known what this particular actress looked like, we understand her story by reading the article. And we also know what a 14-year old girl looks like. This pic can be inserted in the 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' bin too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ClintEastwoodCannesMay08.jpg - This is a photo of Clint Eastwood. The reasoning is the same as the above portrait shot. Some people might not know who Clint Eastwood is, but the article thorougly details who he is and what his involvement is in the film. And again, we also know what an older male looks like. There's no compelling reason to add a shot of an old man with white hair looking straight ahead.
Erik, if you can come up with some ridiculous outlandish argument to contradict what I'm saying, I really don't think I'm going to believe you. However, if you tell me all those pics are subject to deletion, I won't hold you to a double standard. Please keep in mind, these pages are all Featured Article status. They represent the best of Wikipedia. DeWaine ( talk) 23:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
When you have a chance, can you take a look at this image? Johnandmitchy has added it to the above film article, twice, and I have removed it both times, arguing its use is not justified. Looking at the image page, though, I see that he is claiming to be the image's author, stating that it is an "on set photo from extra." But, looking here, we see the same image, and it is clearly a screen grab from the movie. This makes his claim verifiably false. Is the image then eligible for deletion? I would like to know what you think about this, please. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 04:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I see my using "ref name=" and having moved the actual references to the ref section made it easier to excize the ones you did not use... though your striping down to what you feel "really matters" might cause an eventual reinsertion of some of the sourced content if other editors and readers themselves feel it "really matters" (chuckle). Appreciate your efforts. Nice rewrite. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I added that review, but I couldn't quite make out the name either. It appears to be initials from some author. It is displayed exactly as it appears in the article. Was it necessary though to delete the piece? I believe this particular film critic has some sort of credibility. Here are a list of other reviews with his name tag:
DeWaine ( talk) 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Please come to the discussion at Talk:The Avengers (film project)#Maria Hill. I would like to hear your opinion.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to revert that reversion myself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't figure out him, or what he's up to, and it is becoming difficult to assume good faith. Before finding that image he added to Out of Sight, I had never encountered him before. Nor did I look far into his edit history. But, now that you have found these other borderline images, one has to wonder how many more there might be. I hope that he responds to your message and we can get some answers. Thanks for your efforts. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You may want to keep your eye on User:ScooterWeintraub77. He shares Johnny's singular fixation with actress Nancy Allen. Could be coincidence, but maybe not. The timing seems peculiar. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 05:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Where do you think this should be redirected to. Notice that where it's redirected to it's called Superman:THE Man of Steel and the future film is supposedly reported to be named precisely after this redirect. Jhenderson 777 16:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that you've debated this article after the verdict went to 'keep'. This is the second AfD that was declined on the article. (Which is a surprise to me as I usually lose arguments of this nature) I ask that you please hold off another AfD for a month or more. I respect all of your points, and am happy that you've cleaned out the fanboy junk. I will keep an eye on the text with an eye to not allowing the crap back in. Your links to various MOS essays and points have enhanced my knowledge of Wikipedia greatly and I hope I can do as good a job. Of course, it's not -mine- and you may want to watch it yourself. ʘ alaney2k ʘ ( talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 20 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Soul Surfer (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Soul Surfer is an upcoming film about Bethany Hamilton, who lost her left arm in a shark attack while surfing? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It's now an appropriate time for this article.. even needing the work it does. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you rvd a suspected sock edit. There are lots of edits that are too numerous/hard to check, especially recent IPs. Sources are rarely given. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 04:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems under its Russian spelling "Манкурт" book and news sources are available by adding the release year or writer into searches. The term Mankurt appears to be a rough translation only... as it also translates as "Manwolf" and "bird-minded". I'm finding enough in books that it seems this director's final film had made it into the enduring record. Of course, I've trimmed all the extraneous commentary about the novel and the neologism from the article as I've been sourcing. Interesting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The Frontier Boys is now looking better... enough independent secondary sources to push at WP:GNG and not too bad for an indie film that only just had its premiere. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Why do you do it ? - The Castbreeder ( talk) 11:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You posted in the discussion, so it was obviously clear to you this is a NEW template under DISCUSSION and therefore needs EXAMPLES for that discussion to take place. Is that clear enough for you? We would all appreciate it if in future you would Assume Good Faith and allow a discussion to be completed before taking things into your own hands and deleting just because you "feel like it". There's no consensus yet, imo, but so far the clear preference is to keep the template. Consider this a warning for disruptive editing - I don't know what else to call what you did, as I'm amazed you could read the comments so far and believe nobody's opinion counts except your own. Just incredible. Flatterworld ( talk)
You can link to an old revision to show how a template is used. It does not need to be live in the mainspace. In addition, two links at True Grit do not meet WP:EL criteria and just make up a link farm. The other parameters are also not needed. Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering, how do you see the {{ FilmLinks}} template being used? There are eleven parameters right now. Would you endorse filling all the parameters if a film happened to have a page at each of these websites? Do you want to link to Rotten Tomatoes even if it has just three reviews? Or Box Office Mojo if it has no more statistics than can be reported in the article body? Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Erik; I hope you are not too busy to look into this. Front of the Class (film), a Hallmark Hall of Fame film, was created. To my knowledge, it does not meet WP:NOTFILM. Could you look at the sources in Brad Cohen#Hallmark Hall of Fame movie and let me know if I'm wrong? See Talk:Brad Cohen#Notability, where I've listed two sources I'm aware of. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, got the sources in and did some initial cleanup, but haven't expanded yet to include critical reception, etc-- do you have time to look at the basic structure or anything that should be added? I'm going to be busy the rest of the day. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to be traveling and won't be able to expand the article just yet. If you get bored and want to have at it, go for it! Otherwise, end of March for me (and I have to locate the book, which is in a box somewhere 'round here). Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that the entire ethos of WP:V and WP:PLOT make it clear that concise, verified summaries are the best kind of summaries. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
How could you approve of the removal of the Prec/Foll parameters in the Film Infobox's? They made things much easier and they've been a part of the Wikipedia Film Page Tradition for a while now. Just because there was a sudden disagreement on the Batman film franchise and the James Bond film franchise you decide it to be okay to remove them.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 03:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Why do you want to delete the article ? - Jackie Chuck ( talk) 11:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe after years of improving articles, this is actually the very first I ever sent to AFD. Could you check my creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Night (2010 film) to make sure I did not miss a step? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
... just an observation. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:10, 1 March 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Hello Erik! Thanks for participating on the Kanthaswamy page discussion. I would like to also apologise if any of my statements are harsh to you. Sorry from the bottom of my heart. Thanks again man! Yours faithfully, Kotak kasut. 13:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this site on your spam page while searching for links. There seems to be an effort by a string of IPs to add links to the site (usually as references) over the past few weeks. The site doesn't appear to qualify as such, especially given their disclaimer:
"Information presented on our Service may contain errors or inaccuracies, and we make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, correctness or reliability of the content of our Service."
I'm working through the list, but thought you should know in case you see any pop up. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I see that you removed this from the Halloween 6 page which surprised me, but I just wanted to let you know that this version of the film exists so you should not have taken it off the page. Some of the extended clips in this uncut version of the Theatrical Cut are even featured on Youtube. As for the information at Movie-Censorship.com most of the time it's correct in it's information as it provides pictures of these deleted footage of films and alternate takes in TV versions. It features pictures that show the extended footage in the Director's Cut of this movie that is in fact in there. The scenes such as the operating room massacre with the beheading of Dr. Wynn and the nurse getting gutted aren't shown in pictures, but everything else in there is and are in fact correct. So I don't see why it can't remain linked on the page. It's the only website that supports what's shown in the Director's Cut. It's the version of Halloween 6 that has little known to to a lot of people and this information would help them. Again, this cut DOES EXIST. The pictures shown at the link prove this.
Jabrona ( talk 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Erik, if you have time, could you drop in at this discussion on how to get the Horror WikiProject back on it's feet? Thanks, -- TÆRkast ( Communicate) 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Any reference help would be appreciated, thanks. AaronY ( talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I am really sad, that you deleted every bit of my effort regarding different versions of movies with the reason that is "link spam". I did not post any links without giving some explanations and information to the database here. I just backed up my texts with a source like it should be. Some other admins even thought my links and texts are interesting and just reformatted them a bit. Some of my texts in my opinion were detailed and informative, like the one I posted in the Armageddon article. I think it is useful and interesting information for readers, that there is a director's cut on the market, especially when the most releases only contain the shorter version. Censorship in general is a topic which is always interesting regarding every art like movies, books, comics etc. To delete such information on an encyclopaedia in my opinion is wrong. But in the end you have more pull here then me, so I can't change it.
To cite a sentence from the terms of use of movie-censorship.com is really not very convincing. This is just a standard "Terms of Use"-text, which you can find on many sites. Of course the makers of the comparisons on movie-censorship.com can not guarantee that they do not make any mistakes or that they won't oversee some cuts. Especially when some movies have more then 500 cuts like the Millenium-trilogy. In the end they are only human. That is the reason for the ToU-text.
Maybe you can give it a second thought. Anyway, have a nice.
Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.64.254 ( talk) 15:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Erik, there was a mini-consensus on the Salt talk page (and here) to include the Director's Cut since the ending is very different from the theatrical. This was mainly because editors was changing the plot to the Director's Cut version, repeatedly. — Mike Allen 01:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Note This discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard concluded that the site does not constitute a reliable source per the project's guidelines. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey I just recently nominated The Last Airbender for good article status and I am just asking you to help out in any way you could to make it that way. Listening to some of the comments in the review should help. Jhenderson 777 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The image of the East German military base in the Wikipedia article of Equilibrium movie, is not just any non-free image taken by a camera, but it is a frame extracted from the original movie itself. It appears that this kind of non-free image can be legally posted at Wikipedia article, because the fair use policy allows it. This context significantly differs from posting at Wikipedia the photos taken by an individual photographer who owns the copyrights of the image. Generally the film industry authorizes individual frames extracted from the movie to be posted at Wikipedia for informative purposes. This is why after careful deliberation I had added the image of the abandoned East German military base to the Wikipedia article of Equilibrium. In this case, if you agree with this assessment, please let us put back the image at the Wikipedia article. Best Regards, Futuristicarchitect ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Please help me understand why this review would be considered spam? The website is accurate as is the text of the review. I was also able to find many other reviews by Popzara quoted on Wikipedia including "And Yet It Moves", "Ys", and "Sonic the Hedgehog 4" - the quote was not mine, but I'm fairly new to editing and I'd like to understand this undo a bit better. - Thanks! Skacey42 ( talk) 19:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Per your suggestion in talk page discussion, I have moved the page to Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe it's protocol to inform editors involved in a dispute when there is action being taken, so I just would like to point out Talk:Acceptance_of_Golden_Raspberry_Awards_by_recipients#RfC:_Removal_of_sourced_info to you. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a policy that states when movies of the same name should be disambiguated? Sometimes I've seen all movies disambiguated; other times I've seen one made the primary topic. For instance, the remakes The Omen, The Karate Kid, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween II are disambiguated, and the original films are the primary topic. Likewise, Psycho (film) was up until a few months ago carried the (1960 film) disambig and a RM failed to re-disambiguate it. Oh yeah, and I just noticed this now, but The Aviator (2004 film) was recently moved back to just The Aviator despite there being a film of the same title made in 1985. I just readded a disambig for the 1985 film. I bring this up because I noticed you movied Season of the Witch (film) to Season of the Witch (1972 film). It just seems there's no real standard and people arbitrarily move pages as they see fit until someone else decides to change it. hbdragon88 ( talk) 06:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 19 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Season of the Witch (2011 film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the newly released film Season of the Witch was scheduled to be released in March 2010, but the original distributor, Lionsgate, pulled it five weeks before the release date? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
See here for main topic. Jhenderson 777 01:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Bot_requests I wrote a majority of the robot. I still have a few more features I want to add but I don't understand what you want for the talk pages. I know the bot request is kinda old so have things changed since then? I'm not sure how to proceed after the bot is written, although I have a lot of testing to do. Also it's good knowledge for you to have that I'm writing the bot. -- Peppage tlk 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You are aware that there is a incubator for Dark Knight Rises right? I was involved with formatting that a little and I was also involved with helping the redirection page being protected so if you want it unprotected I will request it unprotected for you. I also have a userpage draft still lying around when I didn't know there was a article incubator of it that I can use to format it as a film project type article if you like it to be a article before filming. Jhenderson 777 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Change of plans this is what it looks like. I put it back as a redirection for cautious reasons. Jhenderson 777 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll ask you to please reconsider and revert that edit, because I have a compelling reason for those image additions. I noted that they were all low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. As an example, this screenshot from Avatar's page displays a similar usage/rationale, and was not deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg DeWaine ( talk) 02:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I have an idea for the Film Project. With the Acadmey Awards nominations tomorrow, I would really like to see (at least) the films nominated for Best Picture, Best Documentary, Best Animated Picture, and perhaps some other categories to get up to B-class or better. I don't have much experience in expanding articles, so its something that I would like to work on. I don't know if this is something I should bring up at the Project talk page, but was wondering if at least you would think it is a good idea. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI - apparently this rule has been repealed. Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Erik. Please stop introducing weasel words and removing sourced information from the article. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 02:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Erik, have you seen the move discussion at Talk:Fight Club (film)? -- Andy Walsh (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Erik,
I'm confused with the complexity of wikipedia but I really want to help make the existing articles on films much better. Some topics I would like to elaborate on are camera placement and movement, cinematography (depth of field in shots, frame rates and lighting) and editing (time intervals between cuts, transitions between shots (ex. dissolves, wipes)) for films.
Who can I reach out to for all my questions?
Here are a few...
How can I email a user? According to a wikipedia article, I go to the toolbox, but I don't even see a link to email you.
Why am I only allowed to submit .ogv files for video clips? Why not flash files?
Will you adopt me or can you recommend me to be adopted by a coordinator in WikiProject Film?
Thanks, Sharrukin Sharrukin josephson ( talk) 12:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Erik,
Thanks for reply. Apparently I had to activate my account to be able to send emails. I'm slowly learning my way around editing and will eventually start contributing (just give me some time.) Thanks for your support. As for now, I don't think I need to be adopted. Sharrukin josephson ( talk) 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Erik,
I was on the Hanna wiki page for the film and saw that you added the poster image to the page. However, I also noticed that the image is only visible when you're logged in to Wikipedia, and not to anyone who just visits the page. I'm still learning about adding images to pages, etc and was wondering if there was a setting that you could choose to make it visible for anyone who visits the page without being logged in?
Thanks! Stacey123 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOM123Wiki ( talk • contribs)
I'll ask you to please reconsider and revert that edit, because I have a compelling reason for those image additions. I noted that they were all low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. As an example, this screenshot from Avatar's page displays a similar usage/rationale, and was not deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg DeWaine ( talk) 02:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hugo_Chavez_in_Brazil-1861.jpeg - In this particular photo, we have Hugo Chavez waving. Now I ask, why is it inserted in the article? Most people know who Hugo Chavez is, and what he looks like. But just in case if you didn't, I believe the article adequately and thoroughly describes who he is, and how his influence relates to the film. There is absolutely no reason to insert this pic. The picture shows a middle age Hispanic male waving his hand. What is unique or contextually significant about this particular photograph? We don't need a photo to show us what Hugo Chavez looks like, nor do we need a photo to show what a middle aged Hispanic male looks like. This screenshot appears to fall in the category of being 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theateroutsidepub_cropped_.jpg - Here we have a photo of a film theater where the movie was screened at. Same story as the previous pic. The paragraph adequately and thoroughly describes the situation with the film being screened at this particular theater with protests and theater reception. Now I ask again, why do we have this pic for? Although the average reader might not know exactly what the exterior of this particular theater looks like; it has a brick facade and looks like any other average theater. There are tens of thousands of theaters that look just like it. So basically, we don't need a pic of this forum because the paragraph describes the situation, and we don't need a photograph of any film theater because we know what a film theater looks like. You can toss this image in the category of 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abigail_Breslin.jpg - Here we have a photograph of a young actress in the film. Please tell me, what is unique or contextually significant about a portrait shot of a 14-year old girl smiling? The actress is mentioned throughout the article, and we know how she relates to the film. Is there any compelling reason to show us what she looks like? Although we might not have known what this particular actress looked like, we understand her story by reading the article. And we also know what a 14-year old girl looks like. This pic can be inserted in the 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' bin too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ClintEastwoodCannesMay08.jpg - This is a photo of Clint Eastwood. The reasoning is the same as the above portrait shot. Some people might not know who Clint Eastwood is, but the article thorougly details who he is and what his involvement is in the film. And again, we also know what an older male looks like. There's no compelling reason to add a shot of an old man with white hair looking straight ahead.
Erik, if you can come up with some ridiculous outlandish argument to contradict what I'm saying, I really don't think I'm going to believe you. However, if you tell me all those pics are subject to deletion, I won't hold you to a double standard. Please keep in mind, these pages are all Featured Article status. They represent the best of Wikipedia. DeWaine ( talk) 23:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
When you have a chance, can you take a look at this image? Johnandmitchy has added it to the above film article, twice, and I have removed it both times, arguing its use is not justified. Looking at the image page, though, I see that he is claiming to be the image's author, stating that it is an "on set photo from extra." But, looking here, we see the same image, and it is clearly a screen grab from the movie. This makes his claim verifiably false. Is the image then eligible for deletion? I would like to know what you think about this, please. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 04:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I see my using "ref name=" and having moved the actual references to the ref section made it easier to excize the ones you did not use... though your striping down to what you feel "really matters" might cause an eventual reinsertion of some of the sourced content if other editors and readers themselves feel it "really matters" (chuckle). Appreciate your efforts. Nice rewrite. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I added that review, but I couldn't quite make out the name either. It appears to be initials from some author. It is displayed exactly as it appears in the article. Was it necessary though to delete the piece? I believe this particular film critic has some sort of credibility. Here are a list of other reviews with his name tag:
DeWaine ( talk) 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Please come to the discussion at Talk:The Avengers (film project)#Maria Hill. I would like to hear your opinion.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to revert that reversion myself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't figure out him, or what he's up to, and it is becoming difficult to assume good faith. Before finding that image he added to Out of Sight, I had never encountered him before. Nor did I look far into his edit history. But, now that you have found these other borderline images, one has to wonder how many more there might be. I hope that he responds to your message and we can get some answers. Thanks for your efforts. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You may want to keep your eye on User:ScooterWeintraub77. He shares Johnny's singular fixation with actress Nancy Allen. Could be coincidence, but maybe not. The timing seems peculiar. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 05:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Where do you think this should be redirected to. Notice that where it's redirected to it's called Superman:THE Man of Steel and the future film is supposedly reported to be named precisely after this redirect. Jhenderson 777 16:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that you've debated this article after the verdict went to 'keep'. This is the second AfD that was declined on the article. (Which is a surprise to me as I usually lose arguments of this nature) I ask that you please hold off another AfD for a month or more. I respect all of your points, and am happy that you've cleaned out the fanboy junk. I will keep an eye on the text with an eye to not allowing the crap back in. Your links to various MOS essays and points have enhanced my knowledge of Wikipedia greatly and I hope I can do as good a job. Of course, it's not -mine- and you may want to watch it yourself. ʘ alaney2k ʘ ( talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 20 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Soul Surfer (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Soul Surfer is an upcoming film about Bethany Hamilton, who lost her left arm in a shark attack while surfing? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It's now an appropriate time for this article.. even needing the work it does. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you rvd a suspected sock edit. There are lots of edits that are too numerous/hard to check, especially recent IPs. Sources are rarely given. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 04:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems under its Russian spelling "Манкурт" book and news sources are available by adding the release year or writer into searches. The term Mankurt appears to be a rough translation only... as it also translates as "Manwolf" and "bird-minded". I'm finding enough in books that it seems this director's final film had made it into the enduring record. Of course, I've trimmed all the extraneous commentary about the novel and the neologism from the article as I've been sourcing. Interesting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The Frontier Boys is now looking better... enough independent secondary sources to push at WP:GNG and not too bad for an indie film that only just had its premiere. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Why do you do it ? - The Castbreeder ( talk) 11:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You posted in the discussion, so it was obviously clear to you this is a NEW template under DISCUSSION and therefore needs EXAMPLES for that discussion to take place. Is that clear enough for you? We would all appreciate it if in future you would Assume Good Faith and allow a discussion to be completed before taking things into your own hands and deleting just because you "feel like it". There's no consensus yet, imo, but so far the clear preference is to keep the template. Consider this a warning for disruptive editing - I don't know what else to call what you did, as I'm amazed you could read the comments so far and believe nobody's opinion counts except your own. Just incredible. Flatterworld ( talk)
You can link to an old revision to show how a template is used. It does not need to be live in the mainspace. In addition, two links at True Grit do not meet WP:EL criteria and just make up a link farm. The other parameters are also not needed. Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering, how do you see the {{ FilmLinks}} template being used? There are eleven parameters right now. Would you endorse filling all the parameters if a film happened to have a page at each of these websites? Do you want to link to Rotten Tomatoes even if it has just three reviews? Or Box Office Mojo if it has no more statistics than can be reported in the article body? Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Erik; I hope you are not too busy to look into this. Front of the Class (film), a Hallmark Hall of Fame film, was created. To my knowledge, it does not meet WP:NOTFILM. Could you look at the sources in Brad Cohen#Hallmark Hall of Fame movie and let me know if I'm wrong? See Talk:Brad Cohen#Notability, where I've listed two sources I'm aware of. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, got the sources in and did some initial cleanup, but haven't expanded yet to include critical reception, etc-- do you have time to look at the basic structure or anything that should be added? I'm going to be busy the rest of the day. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to be traveling and won't be able to expand the article just yet. If you get bored and want to have at it, go for it! Otherwise, end of March for me (and I have to locate the book, which is in a box somewhere 'round here). Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that the entire ethos of WP:V and WP:PLOT make it clear that concise, verified summaries are the best kind of summaries. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
How could you approve of the removal of the Prec/Foll parameters in the Film Infobox's? They made things much easier and they've been a part of the Wikipedia Film Page Tradition for a while now. Just because there was a sudden disagreement on the Batman film franchise and the James Bond film franchise you decide it to be okay to remove them.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 03:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Why do you want to delete the article ? - Jackie Chuck ( talk) 11:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe after years of improving articles, this is actually the very first I ever sent to AFD. Could you check my creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Night (2010 film) to make sure I did not miss a step? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
... just an observation. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)