![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The
August 2007 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. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by
BrownBot
03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If you could copyedit A Beautiful Mind (film) really quick, I'd appreciate it. :) The Filmaker 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you planning on going to see the remake? I've been having some trouble with the plot section and some editors who believe an 1100 word plot is better. I trimmed it to 600 words, but they want the other and think I should trim again, but around their words. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I read that comment. There were a couple things that entised the "that's kind of condescending" synapses of my brain, but as a whole it wasn't (and I like to think I know a little about it, as you've seen plenty of comments from me that were less than favorable and most of your tone wasn't that bad). To Folken, I didn't read the AfD, I read the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine. Thanks for the note on my talk page and sorry I missed the fact that it was promoted. I found the FAC from WP:TV so I've removed it from the tasks section there.-- Opark 77 11:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the redirect back to article status since we have news references that an actual movie is in the offing, as well as an official announcement on Voltron.com back in June. (click know). VoL†ro/\/Force 05:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that he had made
Point edits to 300 (he also made them to the
Reagan article, which I just came across). I think he's doing it because he got spanked on some citation issues in the
John Lennon and
May Pang articles, and might be seeking some payback. My
reply, caught up as it was in edit conflict with yours, was meant as a deflection. I know he was doing it to try and make a point that I am this guy who unfairly asks for citations in Wikipedia articles for that information which he thinks is common knowledge to all.
I am not really concerned about the person, as I haven't done anything wrong. In fact, I have been somewhat more restrained than in the past, and have made numerous attempts to point out the need for citation in the article, which he studiously ignores. After three attempts, I pretty much ignored the guy. If he wants to parrot my actions - especially those actions where I am doing the correct thing, who am I to question if he understands that he's getting it right on at least some occasions. Even a chimp will get the square peg in the square hole once in a while. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, there's in my documents now. Good reads, sometimes they fail to make a point (is the movie good or bad?!) but interesting. You'll be honoured to know I'm going to model the article off your work on Road to Perdition, a film similiarly reliant on its cinematography. Alientraveller 18:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
did you get my dragonall z live action movie page deleted. that is not cool. and then you make your own article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, September 6, 2007
Eric, i copied the dragonball z live action film page and put it into the dragonballz article. I feel that the dragonall z article could be really good, but the categories are thrown all over the place and unorganized, and the entire thing is pretty much a mess. I think the article would be much better if you fixed it up because you are an expert and you have been doing this for a very long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, September 7, 2007
check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright Eric, you know what you are doing. I'll back off the the dragonballz cancellation page and let the processing go through. -cman7792
P.S. good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Folken is a very oppinionated person and he is stubborn. I've been listening to you about staying off the page and letting the process going through. Is there anything i can do to help right now? -cman7792
eric, i tried to put the dragonballz live action movie history on the dragonallz article, like you previously did. but that folken guy deleted it and he is pretty much going out of his way to start an edit war with me. u could tell by the comments he put on the dragonballz article histroy page. -once again, good luck -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
eric, i just removed all the info about the dragonall z live action film from the dragonball z page like you told me to. -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Eric, someone blocked Folken de Fanel. So he is out of the picture for 24 hours. -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I went on Folken de Fanel's discussion page and on the bottom of his page, it said the user is blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. -- Cman7792 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Allright, I removed my comment from User talk:BrenDJ discussion page. He actually reported me, but I could care less. I'm not going to get in troulbe for that.-- Cman7792 23:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I am curious, if you could help... It seems that the majority of, for example, star trek and other television related articles, contain vast amounts of original research. It is my understanding that until a reputable third party has taken the time and effort to, say, document an episode of a television show, the article on that episode must only use verifiable information, such as tv guide summaries. As I understand it, someone watching an episode of a TV show, and then writing an article about that show, constitutes original research. The fact that these articles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Experience , as an example), contain so much uncited information is worrisome at best. If you could offer any kind of advice or input on this, or at least on flagging articles containing largely original research, that would be very helpful to me. Thankyou. 204.100.184.135 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Erik, thanks for the offer. :) Uh, would that require e-mail or anything, coz mine is kinda broken at the moment? Sorry, I'm not real smart when it comes to computer stuff. :/ But yeah, that sounds helpful, so as long as it's not too much trouble for you. Thanks. Paul730 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't think it should be a task force, at least not called that. Task forces generally should be concentrating on a specific type of article (and by that I mean something constantly inherent to the subject; articles falling within a task force shouldn't have much cause to no longer fall within the task force scope, assuming the scope remains constant). But it could be a Department. The thing with Departments is that they tend to concentrate on larger issues such as Translation, Assessment, Categorization - general project-wide issues. I would actually say that the Future film patrolling is more of a maintenance task, and therefore could just be listed as a standing project task. Girolamo Savonarola 21:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add content without
citing
reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.
Folken de Fanel
22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
He seems to be insisting on discussing the matter on the DIsucssion page. Maybe trying that out, pointing out how the cites you are using are valid, might help a lot to deflate the situation. (S)He tends to go off half-cocked sometimes, so explaining what's what beforehand tneds to address the problem. Don't put up with any uncivil behavior, though. You aren't a vandal or an ass-clown, so you don't have to be treated as if you are. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I don't think drawing attention to the fact that, in order to game an AfD process, you're trying to transfer content from an article that's almost certainly going to be deleted because of "non verifiability", in another article, would be good for you. Nor would be to show that you're revert warring to force disputed and unverifiable content into the article and that you've ignored the comments at the AfD... Folken de Fanel 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is something else you want to add, beside that you blindly trust Variety, why not ? But will it get us anywhere ? Folken de Fanel 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I told you, something else than saying that you blindly trust Variety to the point that the world ending tomorrow seems more likely to you than Variety being mistaken once since its creation. I know what you think about Variety, but I also know what i think of it, and in the case of the DB movie, it's unsubstanciated, that's all. Folken de Fanel 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, how do you know it ?
You see, that's precisely what I've been saying all along, and that you refused to take into account. There's no proof of anything, it's unsubstanciated, niether of us knows the truth, so while we've no definite answers, and while Fox keeps forgetting to confirm, or refusing to confirm, we should just see at as another rumor. We'll know very soon if it's a rumor or not, because if according to you Fox accepted to give info to Montreal Gazette, then it's because they're planning to make concrete announcements to the movie very soon. We'll find out then. But for now, it's just rumors denying what other rumors are denying...Just not notable enough.
Now, after talking all the night behind my back and trying to get me blocked because I stand in your way, could you just try to work "with me" (as someone else said) ? Folken de Fanel 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That's you're opinion, and I don't agree with it. You don't agree with mine either. Period. Now, would you respect my opinion, instead of trying to impose yours by disrupting an ongoing AfD ? Folken de Fanel 00:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
And Variety is an unreliable source which has been unconfirmed for 3 years, thus not notable for Wikipedia. Yes, Variety, as every source, as to be proven right, because there's no such thing as absolute truth. Good night. Folken de Fanel 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It just struck me that the article basically just said 'This movie might be happening, but maybe not', which didn't really seem like something verifiable to me and commented as such. I simply don't care. Beyond my comment, I have no involvement whatsoever. HalfShadow 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It won't matter if I change my vote to keep or merge, since the page is too little to warrant a page, it will be merged or redirected anyway. I'll admit it looks better than before. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 04:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
by the way, the hobbit page has a plot that is too long. do you think you can fix it up, because you are good at these things. this is my final comment. -- Cman7792 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Erik! Pleased to meet you. If I need any help with something, or need some proofreading done, I'll be sure to remember you! You're certainly more experienced, with an incredible 17,000 more edits than I...Thanks, Green451 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't, thanks. I do think people might not be perceptive as the consensus seems to be, but that's OK...no more {{spoiler}} tags for me at the top of Plot sections :) -- Lukobe 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I finished the reception section (not saying it doesn't need tweaking). I'll let you and Alien look it over before implementation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll look into it. I also have Paul's Total Film review and Gothetic Oedipus article you gave me awhile back. I'm going to move them over to the sandbox so I don't forget about them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Shia Lebouf confirmed the title at the VMAs dummy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.218.205 ( talk) 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That's alright! I'm not so good with references (as you probably could tell), so I appreciate that you fixed it. - theblueflamingo Squawk 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh honestly, are these people still confusing rumours with reliable news? Alientraveller 15:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow. What a mess. Ideas? Girolamo Savonarola 07:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
As you might be able to see from my user talk page, I seem to have inadvertently gotten into a tiff with Blofeld. During my attempts to tag for the task forces, I decided to start on the Argentine task force and came upon a giant mess at Category:Argentine films - the vast majority of the pages were italicized (aka redirects) that led to the lists like Argentine films of the 1950s. Essentially, almost every Argentine film had an article, but most of them merely redirected to the lists. Blofeld's solution to this is to just delete the cats from these articles, but I think that it's a big problem to keep vast swathes of redirect articles that are essentially acting as placeholders instead of redirecting for structural reasons such as titling or merges. If we don't have a real article for film X, it should have a red link, so that we know that we need to do that article. To get an idea of the damage, go to any of those Argentine films of the X's articles and look at the "What links here" section (I recommend the 500 at-a-time option); you'll see the damage. Should these go to mega-AfD? Also, I seem to have been a little less tactful (a weak spot of mine); would you be interested in joining the discussion? I'm just concerned that while Blofeld has many ambitious projects, most of which are useful, oftentimes the problem with things like this is that there is no community consultation - he just initiates it and then gets very defensive when editors like myself question the implementation. This is especially irksome in cases like this and in the past with the categorization mess, where mass reversion can take days. Anyway... Girolamo Savonarola 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been having a discussion with Girolamo Savonarola to set up the roll call, and just wanted to check with you on it since you were one of the main editors involved in the discussion on the WP:Films talk page. We're thinking of having the message point out that there are task forces that they can join which they can see in the sidebar on the main project page. Additionally, for the coordinator positions, Girolamo is planning on setting up a proposal page. The roll call message will include a notice directing members to take a look at the proposal if they wish and to join in on the discussion on whether or not to create the positions. We can then send another notice down the line once we have reached consensus and if there are elections. You can see the full discussion on Girolamo's talk page. Does this sound reasonable to you? -- Nehrams2020 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I noted you once again have re-added the information after I removed it. While that particular citation does include that particular cast member, the cast was lated updated after the publication of the article, and Jake is no longer a cast member (as evidenced by IMDB). In addition, I removed a fact in the article that has been said to be false, reading the article on that shows it (the article is poorly worded). I got these complaints via OTRS from somone involved in the production of the film. I would appreciate it if you did not revert me again, thanks. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I was talking on the talk page for the movie "the seeker" and you erased what i said. You said your reason was because it was not for general discussion. Well tell me something, what is another word for talk? Discuss is the word, and a discussion is a general talk. It says talk on the page I talk on that page. Come on!! Also I was talking about the movie, because i was writing about it and comparing it to other forms of media. Is that something to delete over???? I request you undo what you undid what i wrote or I will undo what you undid that i wrote. Btw, this is a talk page is it not?? do you see me deleting things on talk pages? that is very rude very!!! You tell me before you delete my discussion. Aka Paradox 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I know you love fair use image debates, and I have one at the Superman Returns article. I think there isn't a reason to have the Superman flying image in the plot, we have enough images of Superman around the article already, but the uploader disagrees. Could you bring your unbiased opinion to Talk: Superman Returns#Fair use? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Now you just have to monitor all those articles. Hey now, I like a lot of Anderson's movies, they are usually entertaining. AvP, Mortal Kombat, Event Horizon (that one was a really good sci-fi thriller), the Resident Evil series, and Soldier. Come on, getting Kurt Russell to not speak is almost a gift right there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan (...*shudder*-"plan", that's a horrible term, it means "potential to be broken"). Anyway, that gives us several months to spruce up the article, given the exponential demands of college. Take it easy. I simply have work tomorrow, and since there is that stupid SurfControl, my Wiki business is severely limited. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Your use of the term "weirdos" in an edit summary to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media using the Wilhelm scream was incivil. Please avoid such discourtesies in the future, for all our sakes. -- Orange Mike 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, no problem. Any bits of info I get time to look at I'll be more than happy to work into the article. Best regards, Liquidfinale 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
From Within (film), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that From Within (film) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Within (film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of From Within (film) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy ( Help!) 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed you reverted an edit I listed. An unreliable source from a fictitious interview is used as the source that's being used, meanwhile a source relating to Cate Blanchett's actual role as the film's nemesis, which may not be listed as a reliable source, but it cites its reference as IESB, the source is there, and IESB is a reliable source, yet you felt the need to revert the edit, rather than verify the fact. Please assume good faith before simply considering an act of vandalism. I know you have about three times the amount of edits that I have and I should not have to tell you these things, and yet here I am. -- linca linca 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
GMTA. :) By the way, I understand your reasoning for including the link of photos as a source due to the AfD process -- willing to let that play out. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I was wondering if you had considered running for one of the Coordinator spots. I think that you have a good perspective of the forest from the trees and are quite an asset for the project already - it seems like a natural step. Girolamo Savonarola 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Kryptonsite pointed us readers to Rob Cohen's personal blog for the upcoming film (because it's being written, or executive produced by Smallville EPs Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. Anyway, I wasn't aware of whether you knew about it or not, and I think I saw some edits to that page by you before. The "other stuff" involved your opinion of me removing that "The film had generally positive reviews" from the reception section of Batman Begins. I was basing it on my understanding of WP:NPOV's fairness of tone. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw that, but I thought it was just a different search engine that was just similar to the one you used. The signature key is still in the insert box, at least it is on my machine. -- BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And so, shall we replace? lol. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the best you got? LOL. It actually took me a minute to realize what the problem was. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Could use some help over there, the move wars are getting ridiculous. There's no cite for that being the release title ,but peopel keep moving it. ThuranX 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Erik - Question for you. Noticed that you just removed all of my posts. And after reading the guidelines, I sadly agree that you were correct in doing so. I was attempting to be careful and relevant, but was breaking the rules none-the-less. So here's my question... ReelzChannel is a new cable TV network with tons of great movie content (interviews, red carpets, festival and award coverage, etc.). How do we set up a partnership with Wikipedia or the editors similar to IMDB (or RottenTomatos, MetaCritic)? I believe that we have some valuable content that could enhance some of your movie entries. Thanks for you time, and sorry for not adhering to the guidlines. Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eparadis ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for my first barnstar Erik! I'm glad you appreciate my edits to reception sections. Although I could probably reword them a little, they tend to look the same from article to article (until I add actual quotes from critics). -- Pixelface 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. Comic FAs are too few and seem hard to maintain, so high-quality, well-referenced work is appreciated. I do my part by working on and off on Batman to bring it to current FA standards. Not sure if you've noticed, but in my editing today I cited the Wright book and insert references to articles from Time and The New York Times (extensive archives, those two). WesleyDodds 11:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
ISBN 0-8018-7450-5. Sorry about the delay; my internet connection has been acting screwy in the past few days. WesleyDodds 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW: Is it me, or are people missing the point here? I just brought something up for use as a reference, then it gets rather strange. WesleyDodds 03:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if you've noticed, but I've started revising the plot synopsis on your Revision page, because that seems like the most basic and straightforward thing to tackle. My main goal with that is to turn it into a more logical plot synopsis from the reader's perspective (that is, the reveleations about Veidt should not be introduced in the second paragraph; rather, near the end, like they are in the story itself). Also, how do you feel about the use of the character's names in the plot synopsis? The article prefers the character's real names, but Dr. Manhattan really does not go by that and Rorschach's is in a sense irrelevant in this context. WesleyDodds 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Eric, could you check the hobbit article again. I'm trying to removie useless information and make the article more organized, but i don't want to over do it. could you edit it please. -- Cman7792 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to merge the Lincoln biopic now: it'll probably start production after Crystal Skull. He's probably storyboarded the whole film. If it is delayed, I would merge it to Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln. Interstellar could be merged to Kip Thorne or Spielberg's own article, considering there is so little. Tintin is no prizes for guesses, and Trial should be merged to Spielberg, considering there is almost completely nothing on that. Alientraveller 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
bub, What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearedhallmonitor ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you asking me about moi contributions? Y? Fearedhallmonitor 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What does it have anything to do with the page?; Reads better the other way; should be kept clear to the reader; saying "substantially less" doesn't explain whether picture's performance ultimately good or bad for the film; too watered down; fan of original revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearedhallmonitor ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith; Nail in coffin?>please don't take all'this so seriously. Moi issue>>article is unnecessarily watered down out of fear of offending others; ex. should we avoid the use of the term bankruptcy to describe failed businesses?; also several other Wikipedia pages employ box office failure terminology describing films (i.e. Grindhouse, snakes on a plane, etc.) ; do those need to be changed as well? box office bomb/|\described by this wikipedia page [6] as a neutral term for describing a picture's business; no compelling reason to change it if Wikipedia community is willing to accept it in majority of the cases. Fearedhallmonitor 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
here's an easy way to clear this up>> in addition to the picture's poor performance is the reaction by the press to the film. the press was very eager to condemn the film's box office and was extremely harsh in it's criticism of the film's box office. the news about this film was that the film did well with critics but did surprisingly poor business. whether the press was right or wrong in its reaction to the film, this is part of the films history; i.e. the press's consistent and direct criticism of the film as a box office bomb/flop/disappointment. to exclude this information from the article is to leave out important history about this picture. take for instance the Don Imus incident. in addition to making controversial remarks about blacks, the press was harsh and direct against Imus. whether they were right or wrong to do is not material>> the press's reaction against Imus is part of the history regarding this media figure>> the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide all relevant information, history und information about an event/person/place. it is best to include all relevant information and then let the reader decide for themselve. leaving out valid, well documented, vefiable information does a disservice to the reader>> Slither box office figures are relevant; so is the reaction by the press, which uniformally categorized this film as box office flop>> inclusive information such as this doesn't negate the article's objectivity, it simply provides additionally history about the film>> watering down this fact simply casts judgement on how the press reported on the film and leaves the reader confused about how the film was received. there is no reason to inject our point of view on the subject>> the solution is simple--> Include all veriable relevant info (A) the films fact and figures (B) how the press and public reacted to the film (i.e. the film's box office, it's perceived financial failure by the press, the press's willingness to condemn the film's box office repeatedly, the critical praise of the film) and (C) the synopsis of the film's plot und characters und actors. thanx for reassuring me this is not a personal matter. Ciao Fearedhallmonitor 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, excellent. Thanks for the link - it may well be useful. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 07:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not bad work for a couple of meatpuppets, huh? Not sure how else we could improve the passage; I think scale is relevant for box office bombs. Some box office bombs hurt studios incredibly badly, some are able to recover costs from overseas. Spider-Man 3, while not at all a box office failure, actually did the worst domestically compared to the previous two and was only able to surpass the others with revenue from foreign territories. Not to mention that some films do recover costs through DVD sales -- can't think of a specific example off the top of my head, but they're out there. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem; as soon as I come out of an imminent meeting. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Erik...just wanted to say hello again and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take a look at my complete re-tooling of the page for BMW Films' " The Hire". Let me know if you think it's worthy enough to have it's status elevated. I've been working on it for months and I think it's nearly there... TabascoMan77 11:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Erik, it's fairly clear to me that Fearedhallmonitor is another sockpuppet of Tromaintern. Evidence for this has been brought up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ogabadaga (not by me, but another admin); he's editing the same articles to include the same information, though using the old trick of having a totally different tone. I think we're wasting time dealing with him.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
k, bad joke. i have been more than civil in my discourse w/ you and others. if junior high antics are to be resorted to, then that becomes an unfortunate path to go down. however, your buddy is in the vein of Iago is using a facsistic ploy to win an argument. even if he was right, that doesn't distract from the merits of my argument, which have been civil und logical. suspected sockpuppetry doesn't justify bad edits. expect a spirited fight from me if you choose to facsistically denigrate me just to win an edit war. the choice is yours, mate. 71.218.195.220 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
== I regret that you have decided to make this personal. I also regret that you havd decided to use that as a reason to challenge my sound, civil arguments. I guess if it's a fight you want, then it's a fight you get. cheers Fearedhallmonitor 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I blocked Tromaintern for his sockpuppetry and disruption of several articles, after seeing he was vandalizing that article you worked on. It will be a good indication Fearedhallmanitor is a sockpuppet if he doesn't edit for the next 24 hours. I think the article looks good now, minus the disruptive behavior.-- Cúchullain t/ c 04:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Pages such as JamieandTeddy.com are registered to the same email address (teddyhanssen@yahoo.com) as the one of the MySpace profiles, which are confirmed as part of the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield. Therefore by association they are related. Slashfilm and other site have confirmed that Slusho.jp is a part of the viral marketing campaign. There is no need to remove the links.
Where is your confirmation on 1-18-08.com? Where are the "links to articles where people involved with the production/marketing confirm that the sites are involved"? You can't have links to one site "unconfirmed" (by Wiki definition) site and disallow other sites that are obviously related and are proven legitimate after a few minutes research.
Looking at the facts that we do have (registered email addresses, links to other confirmed sites, etc), all it takes is a little common sense to put everything together. Do you really think someone faked a video for the movie using one of the actual actresses from the movie? Not likely. 1-18-08 is linked on the Wiki page because the connection is pretty obvious. Well, the same can be said for the sites I've listed. -- Captain Impulse 07:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Point conceded. However, the interview also indicates that other sites exist but at the time had not yet been found. I think that with those statements, plus glaring evidence to its legitimacy (the existence of Slusho in the trailer [on a character's shirt] coupled with the date of the site's inception, the actress playing Jamie Lascano in the video acting "in-character", etc), those sites should definitely be included. -- Captain Impulse 10:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand it perfectly, but this is very loosely enforced throughout Wikipedia. Another thing; an edit was reversed concerning the ability to flip the pictures on 1-18-08.com, citing "unreliable sources". How is it unreliable if any shmoe can prove it by DOING IT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That was fast! But then again, I was surprised you hadn't started the article yourself. Yippee... Melty girl 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as you're a notorious stickler for the rules (and quite rightly), I was wondering if this novice editor could ask your advice on something. I've discovered that the website Chud.com now has a script review for the State of Play film, the article for which I've been "looking after". While I've no intention for now of using it to create a plot summary, it does contain some details which might be useful to the article (character names, elucidation on the premise). While I've little doubt that they have actually got their hands on the script, do you think that the site can be a considered a reliable enough source to be used in the article? Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
you wrote on the slither page--> "Any issue with others of the new content? I made this contribution because I believe that it's a substantial fact in regard to the box office performance, as opposed to mere throwaway reiterations of information already there." — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, not the movie vs. film thing again. BTW, your response was great as usual, but I'm sort of hesitant to get back into this debate for the nth time. Keep in mind, this debate has been going of for years and I'm just sick of it. :) — Viriditas | Talk 13:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
How can you not see the facts in front of you, the image taken from a cellphone in Japan. Trust me, it's not a photoshop work (nothing is ripped or filtered, so why can't I put it on the Cloverfield page?)
Image:Windowslivewritermonstorpics-ddeecl.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolifix - Zaretser ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sweet! -- Melty girl 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Should we unmerge the Wolverine article? It's a few months until filming, crew are being hired and Australia is the confirmed shooting location. Also, would you consider this a reliable source? Alientraveller 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, they pushed back filming by a month, so we'll keep waiting. Alientraveller 09:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The September 2007 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. Thank you.
Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I've nominated Cillian Murphy for FAC, but there just don't seem to be that many reviewers around right now. So on the chance that you have the time and inclination to review it against WP:FACR, I thought I'd ask you to take a look. If you can, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cillian Murphy. Thanks! -- Melty girl 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think your request will get the ball moving. Further, once the RfCU is done (and if positive), we can further pursue it by asking a couple admisn where to take such a request. ThuranX 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Was the CFQ article the only one he liked? We won't find an online copy, because their archives only go back as far as 1995. There may be a PDF version on the web somewhere, but something tells me that this is going to be a library source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the heads-up. To be honest, it's something I've been mulling over myself these last couple of weeks, even as I've been adding new content to the article. It wasn't until after I'd spent some considerable time on it that I read the notability guidelines for films and realised it shouldn't even exist yet, strictly-speaking. But it's quite amazing how much your suggestion chimed with what I eventually concluded: as there is plenty of verifiable information out there concerning the film, and as they're now so close to the intended start of production, I decided to ignore all rules and let the article stand until such time as it becomes clear filming will be delayed. However, I'm also quite, quite sure that WP:OWN is influencing me at least a little, so if you or someone else thinks it should go, I'll be happy to implement a merge. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you not want the cast to be shown?. It's info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieguru2006 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This remark "(Revert unnecessary amateur attempt to dig up what needs to be buried; we don't link to torrents and Youtube feeds and other items that aren't directly available online)" seemed to be directed at me, except that you didn't actually revert *my* edit, you just moved it to a different place in the paragraph. I think if you were responding to me you would have gone to the talk page as I requested. Still, I couldn't see that you were responding to anyone else. If it was directed towards me I would ask you to be a little more civil and respectful in the future. I have been here at least as long, if not longer than you and while you may not agree with my edits they are not uncritical nor made without due consideration - probably one reason I do not have as many contributions as you despite being here since 2002. Contrawise, if you really believed that I *was* an amateur your response was equally impolite since it is your duty to be welcoming to new people. Also, your justification made no sense since you cannot link to something not directly available online. Take care. Saudade7 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh wait, I get it now having looked at this page. You are friends with Alientraveller - the *one* person who has a problem with that link. Well then you will *both* have to come up with a *real* reason for censoring the information. Saudade7 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You are one of two editors who repeatedly remove an important reference from an article, despite Wikipedia guidelines to the contrary. Leave the reference in the article. -- Scjessey 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you could pop down to the talk page? I'm really unsure of how reliable the LA Times piece is when most of what it reports has been debunked. Alientraveller 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha, yes. I was very surprised when I saw the 19%, especially as I'd just read the Variety review, which isn't too hard on the film. Ah well, file alongside Eragon (16%) I guess. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The moment the studio marketing wonks changed the title from the familiar title (that could have drawn in fans of the books as well as create merchandising opportunities), I knew the movie was doomed. The Seeker sounds like some quasi- middle America spiritual enlightenment story by way of white bread philosophy. The only the film could have been worse is if Schumacher had directed it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Erik. Hope your doing well and I'm happy to hear your in school! I'm hoping to start school myself here soon. Your one of the few people to me on here at Wikipedia, I do appreciate that and I haven't forgotten it. Remember, education above all else. I'd like to teach at MIT someday. Ciao. 72.49.203.96 07:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua
Can I ask you in a non hostile way, how you know so much about movies that are not out? Are you in film school? Do you work in the biz? Just wondering Frater210 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
The reason why These are the damned includes categories is that it is the US title of the British film The Damned (1963 film). By including the categories it will appear under "T", while The Damned (1963 film) appears under "D".
Wiki policy does state that "adding categories to a redirect page allows legitimate alternative titles or names to be found in category lists". This is specified at: [8]. I will therefore restore the categories.
Cheers.-- Marktreut 07:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I started a section on a Comics Project Improvement drive on the Notice Board talkpage and one possibility was Kingdom Come but I've been told you have this in hand and if so that means we can focus on other articles. ( Emperor 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
I am glad you got some relief from your hassles. I found out that a user set up a sock to use as an attack account simply to report me for 3RR twice. I took a look at the edit history for the account and discovered I was the only fellow on their hit parade, so I filed a checkuser, wondering if it was one of the charming young ducklings I've had the unhappy opportunity to argue with (I had two, maybe three possibles, and you know at least one of them - only someone with a real mad-on and enough inexperience with the rules to fool admins they didn't know they were wrong). Apparently, the person's account has been reinstated, as they claimed mea culpa about the rules of sock-puppetry. I would very much like to know the real account of this editor, because they are claiming to have made a mistake and yet, they are still hiding behind the sock. I am not sure how to proceed, but I am thinking I am going to find out the primary account, and am willing to move up the food chain until I find out. I have a right to know who is using Wikipedia to attack sepcifically me. Or am I completely wrong? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I just discovered that this was all closed out while I was mostly away for the weekend. After looking at Heavy Brother's Talk Page today (an account I thought indef blocked), I sent a message to the admins weighing in on the matter: John254 and Philippe. I didn't involve FutPerf (not exactluy a neutral party where I am concerned, having essentially de-pantsed him in the Summer's image discussion) bc he had acted upon Heavy Brother's first 3RR report and blocked me. By chiming in, he's pretty much already shown his stripe. I am willing to wait until i hear back from the two admins, but if the end result isn't about me learning Heavy Brother's main account name, I am prepared to work my way up the food chain. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
On reflection I agree that the blog is irrelevant. I included it only to show public sentiment. I will search for broader sources. The Catholic League press release is certainly necessary however. Without the release the reader is left lacking information as to why the boycott was called in the first place. I could rewrite it in my own words and reference the release, but I thought it far more succinct to instead provide a limited quote of the release and let it speak for itself.
I know you weren't particularly opposed to including a well-written section in the article about the proposed boycott of Golden Compass, but the limited coverage you link to in the Google News archive shows that it is still a marginal issue. As such, I strongly believe that a whole section on the subject is not warranted; one line with a link to their website seems enough to me until such time as the issue receives more widespread coverage. It is also worth noting that the Catholic League, while vocal, are a pretty marginal group in the scheme of things, and while I'm not suggesting they're ignored altogether, care should be taken not to give undue prominence to their statements, both now and in the future. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
While I understand what you wrote to me ( :Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Cloverfield. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)) I feel compelled to point out that the article states fact, where there are no facts. It seems to know information that no one else does. If that is the undisputed plot summary, I concede that I was wrong to edit it.
However, as there have been no plot details released to any official media, I feel that an article in a public domain that purports to have the facts needs either it's official sources (I've checked out the sources - none of them official), or an open-ended plot summary. Maybe even nothing written there at all, as no real facts are known.
As for the formal tone - the wording was grammatically correct, and the same style as you would find in any science text book where not a lot is known about that particular part or subject.
If you have any further issues with my edit, please feel free to discuss them with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbie3000 ( talk • contribs) 12:13, October 10, 2007
Hey Erik. I notice you have worked on this article regularly. There was a broken reference ('Cite error 8') for a sentence about a film being made in Toronto in the 'Film adaptation' section, so I took it out. The ref name was 'thestar.' My guess is that you still have this source for this reference somewhere. According to the history, you originally added the sentence on 8 July. EdJohnston 08:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I still have a problem with the plot summary. It is an interpretation of the original quote from that source:
(" Cloverfield,"... revolves around a monster attack in New York as told from the point of view of a small group of people)
The premise in the Wikipedia section is an interpretation of the above quote, as there is no indication of them "struggling" to survive.
Also, I fail to see how one single source in the media knows for definite that that is what the film entails, when nothing has been released. This should be written in to the premise, surely? Otherwise it is misleading, and completely at odds with what an encyclopeadia should be. Many people use these such sites as a true reference. If omissions such as these are allowed on to the site, then how can anyone be sure of the validity of the information contained in any of the pages?
I am eagerly awaiting your reply. -- Sebbie3000 09:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll revise the text under critical receptions later in the day. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think
Spider-Man 3 is something I can get done quicker, given all those cites you provided on the talk page. I'll be getting the DVD too, so we can consolidate references. I'll probably rewrite Batman Begins' filming section and write about the special effects. I wish I had the DVD now: I lended it to my uncle, and we don't see each other often. Still, VFX World has an excellent feature on the film. In addition, I may restructure release from reception, given we have a real lack of box office information.
Alientraveller
19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree he shouldn't have removed the CSD. However, due to his edits it no longer qualified for "no context". I switched it back to afd, since it now has some theoretical claim to notability. Horrorshowj 23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you fix up the hobbit page one more time. -- Cman7792 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
He didn't just remove them, he speedily deleted them on the spot. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:NFCC criterion #8 is a pain. Not to worry. I am concerned about the lack of images on Wikipedia, but this policy is being enforced from the top-down and there isn't much we can do except try to find images that meet policy guidelines. In my own experience, (and YMMV) Alkivar seems to have done a lot of good work, so I wouldn't hold it against him personally. — Viriditas | Talk 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I just saw that they sent in ImageRemovalBot on Fight Club. That sucks. Let it go for now; we'll get through this and get them back up in no time. You have a better shot at including the images in a section about critical commentary per the fair use guidelines. I can easily do this for CoM, but it may take some time to set everything up. — Viriditas | Talk 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That administrator's rashness did make you buckle up though and select some really great images. Every cloud has its silver lining... Alientraveller 08:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am kinda concerned that the connecting of the characters' abilities from Heroes to the list of comic book superpowers is OR by synthesis. I posted my concern here. What are your thoughts on the subject? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Erik...
Thought I would let you know that the article I re-wrote (The Hire) got a "B-rating"! :)
Very cool!
Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions on it!
TabascoMan77 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that perhaps it would be valuable to WP Films if there were an organized subgroup devoted to maintaining and keeping a watch over future film articles. Whether or not it would be considered a task force or a department, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that you'd be a natural candidate to help conceive of such a group. It would also allow you to formally integrate your user-space lists into the project for the benefit of all. What are your thoughts on the matter and who else might be worth consulting on it? (Bignole? I forget if he does future films too or not.) Girolamo Savonarola 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
For both of you, this is a tool that can be used to track accurately if a film has entered production or not. Definitely would use this over IMDb's so-called status attribute, which I've noticed has been belated oftentimes. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't need my patronising you, but that's some excellent work you've done over at User:Erik/FFW; a hell of a lot to take in, but I'll do what I can to help keep an eye on them. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 07:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to introduce... WP:FUTFILM. I have not announced this yet, so as to give you time to tinker and whatnot for at least a few days, and get it into whatever shape you think it needs. As you can also see at the bottom, I've linked to your userspace lists. You may want to consider moving these to the WikiProject space as a subpage of the Future films department, so as to keep things centralized and "open". Enjoy! Girolamo Savonarola 05:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop removing the Tagruato link and calling it original research. The sites link to each other. Granted, it could be reworded, but it shouldn't be removed completely. -- General Holtarna 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I can see why Actor as Role may only be appropriate if additional info is present. If no additional information is present, I've been bolding the role, I don't bold the actor. I must have seen some film articles do it before, because I wouldn't have thought to bold roles on my own. I'll unbold the roles on the articles I've edited and remove the bold formatting on any simple cast lists in film articles I view. Thanks again for notifying me. -- Pixelface 03:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I didn't actually know those templates existed! What I was assuming was that he was trying to add what he thought was relevant info and got pissed that "some noob" was removing his edits. So I tried to keep it amicable. Thanks for the head's up on the templates tho.
Peace,
I noticed you removed the MPAA rating from the article Bee Movie. I don't think it's biased to include the American rating for a film produced in America. Nothing is stopping other editors from adding ratings given to the film in other countries. Placing the MPAA rating in its own section titled Rating may have been biased, but I don't think including " PG" in the article is biased. There is a template that editors can include in film articles to show how a film has been rated in various countries, {{ Infobox movie certificates}}, as seen at Hot Fuzz and other articles. I've added that template to Bee Movie. If you think multiple ratings would qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information, they could be limited to ratings given in predominantly English-speaking countries ( Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States) since this is the English-language Wikipedia. I would not consider it biased if the German-language Wikipedia included the rating given in Germany to a film produced in Germany. I also would not consider it biased if the English-language Wikipedia included the rating given in Germany to a film produced in Germany. -- Pixelface 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So the runtime and release date of a movie is "encyclopedic", but a rating that determines whether a theater refuses minors and can ultimately affect box office grosses is not? In film articles on Wikipedia, alot of information typically comes from the Internet Movie Database. It's a common URL in the External links section, there is a place for it in the Infobox, etc. As far as I know, the Internet Movie Database is only considered unreliable in the case of user ratings. Film certifications are verifiable, a URL surrounded by simple <ref></ref> tags will show up as brackets and a number. The {{ cite web}} template also has room for a quote if you think the ratings need further description. The Internet Movie Database is not the only source for ratings. If you could show me another encyclopedia that includes an entry for Live Free or Die Hard, I think it would help give some insight on what other encyclopedias do or don't do. -- Pixelface 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You redirected Addicted here to it's possible new name Possession .However the producers ,Yari film group have not at this stage renamed it and they still list it as Addicted on their web site [11] and the website SMGFAN , who only post news about SMG projects when it has been offically confirmed , also have had no offical note of a change of title yet.
I tried to change it back to Addicted but my knowledge of redirects isn't sufficient to do that . Garda40 15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the wikipedia page started by me for the G.I. Joe (film) was removed. Why did you specifically decide to challenge my contribution(s)? You will notice that Upcoming films, list not only 2009 films but films in the year 2010, these are clearly not yet in production either, yet they have pages dedicated to them. You should do a system wide edit, if you have such a conviction to adhere to wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egoing ( talk • contribs) 21:51, October 19, 2007
Regarding the article Mortal Kombat: Devastation, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "It was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it has never been to AFD, only speedied. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle ( talk) 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let me thank you and congratulate you on the worklist. I apologize for not having done so sooner; I was distracted when I first saw it, and merely forgot to mention it on later occasions online.
I've been ruminating over the NF guideline for a while, and I was wondering what your thoughts are regarding the seventh Harry Potter film. From what's currently on the page, it seems that it could easily be merged into Harry Potter film series with nothing lost. However, there will be the inevitable gnashing of Potterfan teeth, regardless. And it does seem unlikely that this film won't happen - although of course anything from death of major cast to studio financial problems could happen, however improbable. On the other hand, we have the guideline set up, we've already applied it to other highly anticipated Hollywood films, and applying it consistently will make it less likely for editors to fingerpoint "that's not fair". Whereas the opposite may weaken the guideline's viability. It seems to me that it made sense for us to turn a blind eye to articles which were written before the guideline but were expected to shoot very shortly, but it's been several months now, and this film isn't going to gear up for at least a year or two.
Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola 03:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume the discussion is centralized here. If we are bold in merging Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), we should make the effort as clean and straightforward as possible. This may require some reformatting of Harry Potter film series so the content can fit. We also need to make clear that the film article will be restored when the film enters production and that it is strictly the placement of content in adherence to WP:NF. Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV seem to be the most closely related projects to HP7, so they may be worth mentioning in our merge. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I got a kick out of just reading the WikiProject alone. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha. Speak of the Devil and all that. That's someone's way of telling me to go do the merge. Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted this edit because I'm not sure your reasoning in the edit summary makes sense. The films have been in production for months and the first will be released on DVD Nov. 27th of this year. Aside from being straight to DVD rather than a theatrical release it's pretty much the definition of a future film. Star dust 8212 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Who is your favorite Futurama character? Who is your favorite Transformers character in all series? Who is your favorite actor?( TougHHead 01:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Hey, thanks again for helping out with the Cillian Murphy FAC. I really appreciate that you made the time to do it. -- Melty girl 03:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've de-prodded Crood Awakening and redirected. With "future films" I tend to err on the side of caution: While you're entirely correct that the current article doesn't need to exist, there's very little harm in a redirect. Note that it also means that no-one will (probably) re-create the article. - CygnetSaIad 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha! It took me half an hour of searching earlier in order to find a way of removing the donations box, when all I could have done was have a look at your monobook.css file. Cheers for the other pointers too. Best regards,
Liquidfinale (
Ţ) (
Ç) (
Ŵ)
12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit: If you don't already use it, I've also found
Twinkle to be an invaluable time-saver for quick reverts and issuing warnings. The code is added to your monobook.js file, and can be found
here (doesn't work with Internet Explorer at present).
Liquidfinale (
Ţ) (
Ç) (
Ŵ)
12:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the wiki links to edward norton in the incredible hulk article. This is insane, he's the only one without his name bracked in the cast section and it looks weird and unencyclopedic. So either take the wiki links off the other cast memebers in that part of the article or else leave it alone. annoynmous 18:53, 23 october 2007 (UTC)
The newest ref you added to the article ("Gosling and Clooney drop projects") requires registration to the LA Times. Do you happen to have an alternate link? Thanks, María ( críticame) 19:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Publishers Weekly: [12] WesleyDodds 07:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why these can't be nominated for a speedy delete instead of having to wait the five days. Well, actually I can; the criteria for speedy deletion doesn't seem to have an appropriate section for this kind of thing. Perhaps #G1, which mentions hoaxes. I'm willing to tag the aforementioned articles with it instead of the prod to see what happens. What do you think? Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem; I'm leaving work shortly, but I should find time to do some later tonight. Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Invaluable advice, as always. Thanks, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, especially given that a major role had to be recast right before shooting started. I had done that primarily because almost all year, while the film was being cast, people (usually the usual anons) kept changing it to 2008 films even as it became less likely that it would make 2007, and our justification for the reverts was that IMdB was still saying 2007.
Perhaps we should have a category, "Films with an undetermined release date", for movies that are in production (i.e., PP) or postproduction but have not had a release date set yet. Maybe it could even be added automatically if nothing is entered into the date field in the infobox.
In the meantime, I'll adapt your edit summary into a comment above the cats to deter future such edits. Daniel Case 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I hear you. I created The Devil Wears Prada only several months after shooting had wrapped and a release date had been set ... at that point I felt the available information on the film was outgrowing the section for the film in the novel article and should be spun off. That's worked quite well (I still need to split off the production history as a separate article per consensus I got on the film project talk page ... putting the article together was so intense I still want to work on some other things on my list before I get back to it).
This one was started way back when Peter Jackson bought the rights and it looked like it would actually be made, before he'd even started shooting King Kong, before he'd even started the script. I, personally, would have waited but other editors had other ideas. Daniel Case 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have now unprotected this page as per your request. Regards, Hús ö nd 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I could use your opinion. I've completely revamped the Hulk article [13], stripping out excessive plot summary in the character history for creator/creative team commentary and outsider analysis from scientific and religious (Jewish) viewpoints. I stripped out the 'personalities of the hulk', instead using them in the course ofthe character histories. I really need feedback. Tenebrae and Doczilla havfe both reviewed already, but a third set of eyes would be truly, and deeply, appreciated. I'm going to try to solicit more feedback before I post the link on the Hulk talk, or jsut BOLDly put it up... ThuranX 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip regarding her Talk page. I made the appropriate changes. Thank you, Swisspass 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't want to be an admin?
—
Wknight94 (
talk)
18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks to you, Bignole, Liquid and so on, I didn't have to do too much. Sorry about jumping the gun on X-Men Origins. Funny title ay? Alientraveller 16:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed your prod and made it into a redirect to the main Kung Fu Hustle page that way if somone searches for it they can find the latest news not just a red link. Whispe ring 17:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
maybe a heads up wopuld have been nice, bub. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you, Alien as well, weigh your thoughts on the current discussion at Talk: Friday the 13th (franchise) about the use of the video game cover that a couple editors want to include. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The October 2007 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. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you noticed that Wildroot (or whatever his/her name is) has been creating articles for all those canceled Batman projects? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:20, 31 October 2007 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The
August 2007 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. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by
BrownBot
03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If you could copyedit A Beautiful Mind (film) really quick, I'd appreciate it. :) The Filmaker 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you planning on going to see the remake? I've been having some trouble with the plot section and some editors who believe an 1100 word plot is better. I trimmed it to 600 words, but they want the other and think I should trim again, but around their words. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I read that comment. There were a couple things that entised the "that's kind of condescending" synapses of my brain, but as a whole it wasn't (and I like to think I know a little about it, as you've seen plenty of comments from me that were less than favorable and most of your tone wasn't that bad). To Folken, I didn't read the AfD, I read the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine. Thanks for the note on my talk page and sorry I missed the fact that it was promoted. I found the FAC from WP:TV so I've removed it from the tasks section there.-- Opark 77 11:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the redirect back to article status since we have news references that an actual movie is in the offing, as well as an official announcement on Voltron.com back in June. (click know). VoL†ro/\/Force 05:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that he had made
Point edits to 300 (he also made them to the
Reagan article, which I just came across). I think he's doing it because he got spanked on some citation issues in the
John Lennon and
May Pang articles, and might be seeking some payback. My
reply, caught up as it was in edit conflict with yours, was meant as a deflection. I know he was doing it to try and make a point that I am this guy who unfairly asks for citations in Wikipedia articles for that information which he thinks is common knowledge to all.
I am not really concerned about the person, as I haven't done anything wrong. In fact, I have been somewhat more restrained than in the past, and have made numerous attempts to point out the need for citation in the article, which he studiously ignores. After three attempts, I pretty much ignored the guy. If he wants to parrot my actions - especially those actions where I am doing the correct thing, who am I to question if he understands that he's getting it right on at least some occasions. Even a chimp will get the square peg in the square hole once in a while. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, there's in my documents now. Good reads, sometimes they fail to make a point (is the movie good or bad?!) but interesting. You'll be honoured to know I'm going to model the article off your work on Road to Perdition, a film similiarly reliant on its cinematography. Alientraveller 18:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
did you get my dragonall z live action movie page deleted. that is not cool. and then you make your own article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, September 6, 2007
Eric, i copied the dragonball z live action film page and put it into the dragonballz article. I feel that the dragonall z article could be really good, but the categories are thrown all over the place and unorganized, and the entire thing is pretty much a mess. I think the article would be much better if you fixed it up because you are an expert and you have been doing this for a very long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, September 7, 2007
check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright Eric, you know what you are doing. I'll back off the the dragonballz cancellation page and let the processing go through. -cman7792
P.S. good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Folken is a very oppinionated person and he is stubborn. I've been listening to you about staying off the page and letting the process going through. Is there anything i can do to help right now? -cman7792
eric, i tried to put the dragonballz live action movie history on the dragonallz article, like you previously did. but that folken guy deleted it and he is pretty much going out of his way to start an edit war with me. u could tell by the comments he put on the dragonballz article histroy page. -once again, good luck -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
eric, i just removed all the info about the dragonall z live action film from the dragonball z page like you told me to. -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Eric, someone blocked Folken de Fanel. So he is out of the picture for 24 hours. -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I went on Folken de Fanel's discussion page and on the bottom of his page, it said the user is blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. -- Cman7792 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Allright, I removed my comment from User talk:BrenDJ discussion page. He actually reported me, but I could care less. I'm not going to get in troulbe for that.-- Cman7792 23:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I am curious, if you could help... It seems that the majority of, for example, star trek and other television related articles, contain vast amounts of original research. It is my understanding that until a reputable third party has taken the time and effort to, say, document an episode of a television show, the article on that episode must only use verifiable information, such as tv guide summaries. As I understand it, someone watching an episode of a TV show, and then writing an article about that show, constitutes original research. The fact that these articles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Experience , as an example), contain so much uncited information is worrisome at best. If you could offer any kind of advice or input on this, or at least on flagging articles containing largely original research, that would be very helpful to me. Thankyou. 204.100.184.135 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Erik, thanks for the offer. :) Uh, would that require e-mail or anything, coz mine is kinda broken at the moment? Sorry, I'm not real smart when it comes to computer stuff. :/ But yeah, that sounds helpful, so as long as it's not too much trouble for you. Thanks. Paul730 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't think it should be a task force, at least not called that. Task forces generally should be concentrating on a specific type of article (and by that I mean something constantly inherent to the subject; articles falling within a task force shouldn't have much cause to no longer fall within the task force scope, assuming the scope remains constant). But it could be a Department. The thing with Departments is that they tend to concentrate on larger issues such as Translation, Assessment, Categorization - general project-wide issues. I would actually say that the Future film patrolling is more of a maintenance task, and therefore could just be listed as a standing project task. Girolamo Savonarola 21:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add content without
citing
reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.
Folken de Fanel
22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
He seems to be insisting on discussing the matter on the DIsucssion page. Maybe trying that out, pointing out how the cites you are using are valid, might help a lot to deflate the situation. (S)He tends to go off half-cocked sometimes, so explaining what's what beforehand tneds to address the problem. Don't put up with any uncivil behavior, though. You aren't a vandal or an ass-clown, so you don't have to be treated as if you are. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I don't think drawing attention to the fact that, in order to game an AfD process, you're trying to transfer content from an article that's almost certainly going to be deleted because of "non verifiability", in another article, would be good for you. Nor would be to show that you're revert warring to force disputed and unverifiable content into the article and that you've ignored the comments at the AfD... Folken de Fanel 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is something else you want to add, beside that you blindly trust Variety, why not ? But will it get us anywhere ? Folken de Fanel 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I told you, something else than saying that you blindly trust Variety to the point that the world ending tomorrow seems more likely to you than Variety being mistaken once since its creation. I know what you think about Variety, but I also know what i think of it, and in the case of the DB movie, it's unsubstanciated, that's all. Folken de Fanel 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, how do you know it ?
You see, that's precisely what I've been saying all along, and that you refused to take into account. There's no proof of anything, it's unsubstanciated, niether of us knows the truth, so while we've no definite answers, and while Fox keeps forgetting to confirm, or refusing to confirm, we should just see at as another rumor. We'll know very soon if it's a rumor or not, because if according to you Fox accepted to give info to Montreal Gazette, then it's because they're planning to make concrete announcements to the movie very soon. We'll find out then. But for now, it's just rumors denying what other rumors are denying...Just not notable enough.
Now, after talking all the night behind my back and trying to get me blocked because I stand in your way, could you just try to work "with me" (as someone else said) ? Folken de Fanel 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That's you're opinion, and I don't agree with it. You don't agree with mine either. Period. Now, would you respect my opinion, instead of trying to impose yours by disrupting an ongoing AfD ? Folken de Fanel 00:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
And Variety is an unreliable source which has been unconfirmed for 3 years, thus not notable for Wikipedia. Yes, Variety, as every source, as to be proven right, because there's no such thing as absolute truth. Good night. Folken de Fanel 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It just struck me that the article basically just said 'This movie might be happening, but maybe not', which didn't really seem like something verifiable to me and commented as such. I simply don't care. Beyond my comment, I have no involvement whatsoever. HalfShadow 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It won't matter if I change my vote to keep or merge, since the page is too little to warrant a page, it will be merged or redirected anyway. I'll admit it looks better than before. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 04:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
by the way, the hobbit page has a plot that is too long. do you think you can fix it up, because you are good at these things. this is my final comment. -- Cman7792 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Erik! Pleased to meet you. If I need any help with something, or need some proofreading done, I'll be sure to remember you! You're certainly more experienced, with an incredible 17,000 more edits than I...Thanks, Green451 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't, thanks. I do think people might not be perceptive as the consensus seems to be, but that's OK...no more {{spoiler}} tags for me at the top of Plot sections :) -- Lukobe 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I finished the reception section (not saying it doesn't need tweaking). I'll let you and Alien look it over before implementation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll look into it. I also have Paul's Total Film review and Gothetic Oedipus article you gave me awhile back. I'm going to move them over to the sandbox so I don't forget about them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Shia Lebouf confirmed the title at the VMAs dummy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.218.205 ( talk) 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That's alright! I'm not so good with references (as you probably could tell), so I appreciate that you fixed it. - theblueflamingo Squawk 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh honestly, are these people still confusing rumours with reliable news? Alientraveller 15:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow. What a mess. Ideas? Girolamo Savonarola 07:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
As you might be able to see from my user talk page, I seem to have inadvertently gotten into a tiff with Blofeld. During my attempts to tag for the task forces, I decided to start on the Argentine task force and came upon a giant mess at Category:Argentine films - the vast majority of the pages were italicized (aka redirects) that led to the lists like Argentine films of the 1950s. Essentially, almost every Argentine film had an article, but most of them merely redirected to the lists. Blofeld's solution to this is to just delete the cats from these articles, but I think that it's a big problem to keep vast swathes of redirect articles that are essentially acting as placeholders instead of redirecting for structural reasons such as titling or merges. If we don't have a real article for film X, it should have a red link, so that we know that we need to do that article. To get an idea of the damage, go to any of those Argentine films of the X's articles and look at the "What links here" section (I recommend the 500 at-a-time option); you'll see the damage. Should these go to mega-AfD? Also, I seem to have been a little less tactful (a weak spot of mine); would you be interested in joining the discussion? I'm just concerned that while Blofeld has many ambitious projects, most of which are useful, oftentimes the problem with things like this is that there is no community consultation - he just initiates it and then gets very defensive when editors like myself question the implementation. This is especially irksome in cases like this and in the past with the categorization mess, where mass reversion can take days. Anyway... Girolamo Savonarola 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been having a discussion with Girolamo Savonarola to set up the roll call, and just wanted to check with you on it since you were one of the main editors involved in the discussion on the WP:Films talk page. We're thinking of having the message point out that there are task forces that they can join which they can see in the sidebar on the main project page. Additionally, for the coordinator positions, Girolamo is planning on setting up a proposal page. The roll call message will include a notice directing members to take a look at the proposal if they wish and to join in on the discussion on whether or not to create the positions. We can then send another notice down the line once we have reached consensus and if there are elections. You can see the full discussion on Girolamo's talk page. Does this sound reasonable to you? -- Nehrams2020 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I noted you once again have re-added the information after I removed it. While that particular citation does include that particular cast member, the cast was lated updated after the publication of the article, and Jake is no longer a cast member (as evidenced by IMDB). In addition, I removed a fact in the article that has been said to be false, reading the article on that shows it (the article is poorly worded). I got these complaints via OTRS from somone involved in the production of the film. I would appreciate it if you did not revert me again, thanks. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I was talking on the talk page for the movie "the seeker" and you erased what i said. You said your reason was because it was not for general discussion. Well tell me something, what is another word for talk? Discuss is the word, and a discussion is a general talk. It says talk on the page I talk on that page. Come on!! Also I was talking about the movie, because i was writing about it and comparing it to other forms of media. Is that something to delete over???? I request you undo what you undid what i wrote or I will undo what you undid that i wrote. Btw, this is a talk page is it not?? do you see me deleting things on talk pages? that is very rude very!!! You tell me before you delete my discussion. Aka Paradox 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I know you love fair use image debates, and I have one at the Superman Returns article. I think there isn't a reason to have the Superman flying image in the plot, we have enough images of Superman around the article already, but the uploader disagrees. Could you bring your unbiased opinion to Talk: Superman Returns#Fair use? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Now you just have to monitor all those articles. Hey now, I like a lot of Anderson's movies, they are usually entertaining. AvP, Mortal Kombat, Event Horizon (that one was a really good sci-fi thriller), the Resident Evil series, and Soldier. Come on, getting Kurt Russell to not speak is almost a gift right there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan (...*shudder*-"plan", that's a horrible term, it means "potential to be broken"). Anyway, that gives us several months to spruce up the article, given the exponential demands of college. Take it easy. I simply have work tomorrow, and since there is that stupid SurfControl, my Wiki business is severely limited. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Your use of the term "weirdos" in an edit summary to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media using the Wilhelm scream was incivil. Please avoid such discourtesies in the future, for all our sakes. -- Orange Mike 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, no problem. Any bits of info I get time to look at I'll be more than happy to work into the article. Best regards, Liquidfinale 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
From Within (film), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that From Within (film) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Within (film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of From Within (film) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy ( Help!) 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed you reverted an edit I listed. An unreliable source from a fictitious interview is used as the source that's being used, meanwhile a source relating to Cate Blanchett's actual role as the film's nemesis, which may not be listed as a reliable source, but it cites its reference as IESB, the source is there, and IESB is a reliable source, yet you felt the need to revert the edit, rather than verify the fact. Please assume good faith before simply considering an act of vandalism. I know you have about three times the amount of edits that I have and I should not have to tell you these things, and yet here I am. -- linca linca 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
GMTA. :) By the way, I understand your reasoning for including the link of photos as a source due to the AfD process -- willing to let that play out. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I was wondering if you had considered running for one of the Coordinator spots. I think that you have a good perspective of the forest from the trees and are quite an asset for the project already - it seems like a natural step. Girolamo Savonarola 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Kryptonsite pointed us readers to Rob Cohen's personal blog for the upcoming film (because it's being written, or executive produced by Smallville EPs Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. Anyway, I wasn't aware of whether you knew about it or not, and I think I saw some edits to that page by you before. The "other stuff" involved your opinion of me removing that "The film had generally positive reviews" from the reception section of Batman Begins. I was basing it on my understanding of WP:NPOV's fairness of tone. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw that, but I thought it was just a different search engine that was just similar to the one you used. The signature key is still in the insert box, at least it is on my machine. -- BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And so, shall we replace? lol. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the best you got? LOL. It actually took me a minute to realize what the problem was. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Could use some help over there, the move wars are getting ridiculous. There's no cite for that being the release title ,but peopel keep moving it. ThuranX 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Erik - Question for you. Noticed that you just removed all of my posts. And after reading the guidelines, I sadly agree that you were correct in doing so. I was attempting to be careful and relevant, but was breaking the rules none-the-less. So here's my question... ReelzChannel is a new cable TV network with tons of great movie content (interviews, red carpets, festival and award coverage, etc.). How do we set up a partnership with Wikipedia or the editors similar to IMDB (or RottenTomatos, MetaCritic)? I believe that we have some valuable content that could enhance some of your movie entries. Thanks for you time, and sorry for not adhering to the guidlines. Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eparadis ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for my first barnstar Erik! I'm glad you appreciate my edits to reception sections. Although I could probably reword them a little, they tend to look the same from article to article (until I add actual quotes from critics). -- Pixelface 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. Comic FAs are too few and seem hard to maintain, so high-quality, well-referenced work is appreciated. I do my part by working on and off on Batman to bring it to current FA standards. Not sure if you've noticed, but in my editing today I cited the Wright book and insert references to articles from Time and The New York Times (extensive archives, those two). WesleyDodds 11:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
ISBN 0-8018-7450-5. Sorry about the delay; my internet connection has been acting screwy in the past few days. WesleyDodds 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW: Is it me, or are people missing the point here? I just brought something up for use as a reference, then it gets rather strange. WesleyDodds 03:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if you've noticed, but I've started revising the plot synopsis on your Revision page, because that seems like the most basic and straightforward thing to tackle. My main goal with that is to turn it into a more logical plot synopsis from the reader's perspective (that is, the reveleations about Veidt should not be introduced in the second paragraph; rather, near the end, like they are in the story itself). Also, how do you feel about the use of the character's names in the plot synopsis? The article prefers the character's real names, but Dr. Manhattan really does not go by that and Rorschach's is in a sense irrelevant in this context. WesleyDodds 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Eric, could you check the hobbit article again. I'm trying to removie useless information and make the article more organized, but i don't want to over do it. could you edit it please. -- Cman7792 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to merge the Lincoln biopic now: it'll probably start production after Crystal Skull. He's probably storyboarded the whole film. If it is delayed, I would merge it to Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln. Interstellar could be merged to Kip Thorne or Spielberg's own article, considering there is so little. Tintin is no prizes for guesses, and Trial should be merged to Spielberg, considering there is almost completely nothing on that. Alientraveller 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
bub, What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearedhallmonitor ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you asking me about moi contributions? Y? Fearedhallmonitor 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What does it have anything to do with the page?; Reads better the other way; should be kept clear to the reader; saying "substantially less" doesn't explain whether picture's performance ultimately good or bad for the film; too watered down; fan of original revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearedhallmonitor ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith; Nail in coffin?>please don't take all'this so seriously. Moi issue>>article is unnecessarily watered down out of fear of offending others; ex. should we avoid the use of the term bankruptcy to describe failed businesses?; also several other Wikipedia pages employ box office failure terminology describing films (i.e. Grindhouse, snakes on a plane, etc.) ; do those need to be changed as well? box office bomb/|\described by this wikipedia page [6] as a neutral term for describing a picture's business; no compelling reason to change it if Wikipedia community is willing to accept it in majority of the cases. Fearedhallmonitor 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
here's an easy way to clear this up>> in addition to the picture's poor performance is the reaction by the press to the film. the press was very eager to condemn the film's box office and was extremely harsh in it's criticism of the film's box office. the news about this film was that the film did well with critics but did surprisingly poor business. whether the press was right or wrong in its reaction to the film, this is part of the films history; i.e. the press's consistent and direct criticism of the film as a box office bomb/flop/disappointment. to exclude this information from the article is to leave out important history about this picture. take for instance the Don Imus incident. in addition to making controversial remarks about blacks, the press was harsh and direct against Imus. whether they were right or wrong to do is not material>> the press's reaction against Imus is part of the history regarding this media figure>> the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide all relevant information, history und information about an event/person/place. it is best to include all relevant information and then let the reader decide for themselve. leaving out valid, well documented, vefiable information does a disservice to the reader>> Slither box office figures are relevant; so is the reaction by the press, which uniformally categorized this film as box office flop>> inclusive information such as this doesn't negate the article's objectivity, it simply provides additionally history about the film>> watering down this fact simply casts judgement on how the press reported on the film and leaves the reader confused about how the film was received. there is no reason to inject our point of view on the subject>> the solution is simple--> Include all veriable relevant info (A) the films fact and figures (B) how the press and public reacted to the film (i.e. the film's box office, it's perceived financial failure by the press, the press's willingness to condemn the film's box office repeatedly, the critical praise of the film) and (C) the synopsis of the film's plot und characters und actors. thanx for reassuring me this is not a personal matter. Ciao Fearedhallmonitor 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, excellent. Thanks for the link - it may well be useful. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 07:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not bad work for a couple of meatpuppets, huh? Not sure how else we could improve the passage; I think scale is relevant for box office bombs. Some box office bombs hurt studios incredibly badly, some are able to recover costs from overseas. Spider-Man 3, while not at all a box office failure, actually did the worst domestically compared to the previous two and was only able to surpass the others with revenue from foreign territories. Not to mention that some films do recover costs through DVD sales -- can't think of a specific example off the top of my head, but they're out there. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem; as soon as I come out of an imminent meeting. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Erik...just wanted to say hello again and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take a look at my complete re-tooling of the page for BMW Films' " The Hire". Let me know if you think it's worthy enough to have it's status elevated. I've been working on it for months and I think it's nearly there... TabascoMan77 11:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Erik, it's fairly clear to me that Fearedhallmonitor is another sockpuppet of Tromaintern. Evidence for this has been brought up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ogabadaga (not by me, but another admin); he's editing the same articles to include the same information, though using the old trick of having a totally different tone. I think we're wasting time dealing with him.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
k, bad joke. i have been more than civil in my discourse w/ you and others. if junior high antics are to be resorted to, then that becomes an unfortunate path to go down. however, your buddy is in the vein of Iago is using a facsistic ploy to win an argument. even if he was right, that doesn't distract from the merits of my argument, which have been civil und logical. suspected sockpuppetry doesn't justify bad edits. expect a spirited fight from me if you choose to facsistically denigrate me just to win an edit war. the choice is yours, mate. 71.218.195.220 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
== I regret that you have decided to make this personal. I also regret that you havd decided to use that as a reason to challenge my sound, civil arguments. I guess if it's a fight you want, then it's a fight you get. cheers Fearedhallmonitor 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I blocked Tromaintern for his sockpuppetry and disruption of several articles, after seeing he was vandalizing that article you worked on. It will be a good indication Fearedhallmanitor is a sockpuppet if he doesn't edit for the next 24 hours. I think the article looks good now, minus the disruptive behavior.-- Cúchullain t/ c 04:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Pages such as JamieandTeddy.com are registered to the same email address (teddyhanssen@yahoo.com) as the one of the MySpace profiles, which are confirmed as part of the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield. Therefore by association they are related. Slashfilm and other site have confirmed that Slusho.jp is a part of the viral marketing campaign. There is no need to remove the links.
Where is your confirmation on 1-18-08.com? Where are the "links to articles where people involved with the production/marketing confirm that the sites are involved"? You can't have links to one site "unconfirmed" (by Wiki definition) site and disallow other sites that are obviously related and are proven legitimate after a few minutes research.
Looking at the facts that we do have (registered email addresses, links to other confirmed sites, etc), all it takes is a little common sense to put everything together. Do you really think someone faked a video for the movie using one of the actual actresses from the movie? Not likely. 1-18-08 is linked on the Wiki page because the connection is pretty obvious. Well, the same can be said for the sites I've listed. -- Captain Impulse 07:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Point conceded. However, the interview also indicates that other sites exist but at the time had not yet been found. I think that with those statements, plus glaring evidence to its legitimacy (the existence of Slusho in the trailer [on a character's shirt] coupled with the date of the site's inception, the actress playing Jamie Lascano in the video acting "in-character", etc), those sites should definitely be included. -- Captain Impulse 10:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand it perfectly, but this is very loosely enforced throughout Wikipedia. Another thing; an edit was reversed concerning the ability to flip the pictures on 1-18-08.com, citing "unreliable sources". How is it unreliable if any shmoe can prove it by DOING IT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That was fast! But then again, I was surprised you hadn't started the article yourself. Yippee... Melty girl 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as you're a notorious stickler for the rules (and quite rightly), I was wondering if this novice editor could ask your advice on something. I've discovered that the website Chud.com now has a script review for the State of Play film, the article for which I've been "looking after". While I've no intention for now of using it to create a plot summary, it does contain some details which might be useful to the article (character names, elucidation on the premise). While I've little doubt that they have actually got their hands on the script, do you think that the site can be a considered a reliable enough source to be used in the article? Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
you wrote on the slither page--> "Any issue with others of the new content? I made this contribution because I believe that it's a substantial fact in regard to the box office performance, as opposed to mere throwaway reiterations of information already there." — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, not the movie vs. film thing again. BTW, your response was great as usual, but I'm sort of hesitant to get back into this debate for the nth time. Keep in mind, this debate has been going of for years and I'm just sick of it. :) — Viriditas | Talk 13:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
How can you not see the facts in front of you, the image taken from a cellphone in Japan. Trust me, it's not a photoshop work (nothing is ripped or filtered, so why can't I put it on the Cloverfield page?)
Image:Windowslivewritermonstorpics-ddeecl.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolifix - Zaretser ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sweet! -- Melty girl 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Should we unmerge the Wolverine article? It's a few months until filming, crew are being hired and Australia is the confirmed shooting location. Also, would you consider this a reliable source? Alientraveller 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, they pushed back filming by a month, so we'll keep waiting. Alientraveller 09:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The September 2007 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. Thank you.
Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I've nominated Cillian Murphy for FAC, but there just don't seem to be that many reviewers around right now. So on the chance that you have the time and inclination to review it against WP:FACR, I thought I'd ask you to take a look. If you can, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cillian Murphy. Thanks! -- Melty girl 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think your request will get the ball moving. Further, once the RfCU is done (and if positive), we can further pursue it by asking a couple admisn where to take such a request. ThuranX 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Was the CFQ article the only one he liked? We won't find an online copy, because their archives only go back as far as 1995. There may be a PDF version on the web somewhere, but something tells me that this is going to be a library source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the heads-up. To be honest, it's something I've been mulling over myself these last couple of weeks, even as I've been adding new content to the article. It wasn't until after I'd spent some considerable time on it that I read the notability guidelines for films and realised it shouldn't even exist yet, strictly-speaking. But it's quite amazing how much your suggestion chimed with what I eventually concluded: as there is plenty of verifiable information out there concerning the film, and as they're now so close to the intended start of production, I decided to ignore all rules and let the article stand until such time as it becomes clear filming will be delayed. However, I'm also quite, quite sure that WP:OWN is influencing me at least a little, so if you or someone else thinks it should go, I'll be happy to implement a merge. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you not want the cast to be shown?. It's info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieguru2006 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This remark "(Revert unnecessary amateur attempt to dig up what needs to be buried; we don't link to torrents and Youtube feeds and other items that aren't directly available online)" seemed to be directed at me, except that you didn't actually revert *my* edit, you just moved it to a different place in the paragraph. I think if you were responding to me you would have gone to the talk page as I requested. Still, I couldn't see that you were responding to anyone else. If it was directed towards me I would ask you to be a little more civil and respectful in the future. I have been here at least as long, if not longer than you and while you may not agree with my edits they are not uncritical nor made without due consideration - probably one reason I do not have as many contributions as you despite being here since 2002. Contrawise, if you really believed that I *was* an amateur your response was equally impolite since it is your duty to be welcoming to new people. Also, your justification made no sense since you cannot link to something not directly available online. Take care. Saudade7 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh wait, I get it now having looked at this page. You are friends with Alientraveller - the *one* person who has a problem with that link. Well then you will *both* have to come up with a *real* reason for censoring the information. Saudade7 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You are one of two editors who repeatedly remove an important reference from an article, despite Wikipedia guidelines to the contrary. Leave the reference in the article. -- Scjessey 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you could pop down to the talk page? I'm really unsure of how reliable the LA Times piece is when most of what it reports has been debunked. Alientraveller 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha, yes. I was very surprised when I saw the 19%, especially as I'd just read the Variety review, which isn't too hard on the film. Ah well, file alongside Eragon (16%) I guess. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The moment the studio marketing wonks changed the title from the familiar title (that could have drawn in fans of the books as well as create merchandising opportunities), I knew the movie was doomed. The Seeker sounds like some quasi- middle America spiritual enlightenment story by way of white bread philosophy. The only the film could have been worse is if Schumacher had directed it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Erik. Hope your doing well and I'm happy to hear your in school! I'm hoping to start school myself here soon. Your one of the few people to me on here at Wikipedia, I do appreciate that and I haven't forgotten it. Remember, education above all else. I'd like to teach at MIT someday. Ciao. 72.49.203.96 07:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua
Can I ask you in a non hostile way, how you know so much about movies that are not out? Are you in film school? Do you work in the biz? Just wondering Frater210 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
The reason why These are the damned includes categories is that it is the US title of the British film The Damned (1963 film). By including the categories it will appear under "T", while The Damned (1963 film) appears under "D".
Wiki policy does state that "adding categories to a redirect page allows legitimate alternative titles or names to be found in category lists". This is specified at: [8]. I will therefore restore the categories.
Cheers.-- Marktreut 07:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I started a section on a Comics Project Improvement drive on the Notice Board talkpage and one possibility was Kingdom Come but I've been told you have this in hand and if so that means we can focus on other articles. ( Emperor 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
I am glad you got some relief from your hassles. I found out that a user set up a sock to use as an attack account simply to report me for 3RR twice. I took a look at the edit history for the account and discovered I was the only fellow on their hit parade, so I filed a checkuser, wondering if it was one of the charming young ducklings I've had the unhappy opportunity to argue with (I had two, maybe three possibles, and you know at least one of them - only someone with a real mad-on and enough inexperience with the rules to fool admins they didn't know they were wrong). Apparently, the person's account has been reinstated, as they claimed mea culpa about the rules of sock-puppetry. I would very much like to know the real account of this editor, because they are claiming to have made a mistake and yet, they are still hiding behind the sock. I am not sure how to proceed, but I am thinking I am going to find out the primary account, and am willing to move up the food chain until I find out. I have a right to know who is using Wikipedia to attack sepcifically me. Or am I completely wrong? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I just discovered that this was all closed out while I was mostly away for the weekend. After looking at Heavy Brother's Talk Page today (an account I thought indef blocked), I sent a message to the admins weighing in on the matter: John254 and Philippe. I didn't involve FutPerf (not exactluy a neutral party where I am concerned, having essentially de-pantsed him in the Summer's image discussion) bc he had acted upon Heavy Brother's first 3RR report and blocked me. By chiming in, he's pretty much already shown his stripe. I am willing to wait until i hear back from the two admins, but if the end result isn't about me learning Heavy Brother's main account name, I am prepared to work my way up the food chain. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
On reflection I agree that the blog is irrelevant. I included it only to show public sentiment. I will search for broader sources. The Catholic League press release is certainly necessary however. Without the release the reader is left lacking information as to why the boycott was called in the first place. I could rewrite it in my own words and reference the release, but I thought it far more succinct to instead provide a limited quote of the release and let it speak for itself.
I know you weren't particularly opposed to including a well-written section in the article about the proposed boycott of Golden Compass, but the limited coverage you link to in the Google News archive shows that it is still a marginal issue. As such, I strongly believe that a whole section on the subject is not warranted; one line with a link to their website seems enough to me until such time as the issue receives more widespread coverage. It is also worth noting that the Catholic League, while vocal, are a pretty marginal group in the scheme of things, and while I'm not suggesting they're ignored altogether, care should be taken not to give undue prominence to their statements, both now and in the future. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
While I understand what you wrote to me ( :Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Cloverfield. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)) I feel compelled to point out that the article states fact, where there are no facts. It seems to know information that no one else does. If that is the undisputed plot summary, I concede that I was wrong to edit it.
However, as there have been no plot details released to any official media, I feel that an article in a public domain that purports to have the facts needs either it's official sources (I've checked out the sources - none of them official), or an open-ended plot summary. Maybe even nothing written there at all, as no real facts are known.
As for the formal tone - the wording was grammatically correct, and the same style as you would find in any science text book where not a lot is known about that particular part or subject.
If you have any further issues with my edit, please feel free to discuss them with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbie3000 ( talk • contribs) 12:13, October 10, 2007
Hey Erik. I notice you have worked on this article regularly. There was a broken reference ('Cite error 8') for a sentence about a film being made in Toronto in the 'Film adaptation' section, so I took it out. The ref name was 'thestar.' My guess is that you still have this source for this reference somewhere. According to the history, you originally added the sentence on 8 July. EdJohnston 08:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I still have a problem with the plot summary. It is an interpretation of the original quote from that source:
(" Cloverfield,"... revolves around a monster attack in New York as told from the point of view of a small group of people)
The premise in the Wikipedia section is an interpretation of the above quote, as there is no indication of them "struggling" to survive.
Also, I fail to see how one single source in the media knows for definite that that is what the film entails, when nothing has been released. This should be written in to the premise, surely? Otherwise it is misleading, and completely at odds with what an encyclopeadia should be. Many people use these such sites as a true reference. If omissions such as these are allowed on to the site, then how can anyone be sure of the validity of the information contained in any of the pages?
I am eagerly awaiting your reply. -- Sebbie3000 09:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll revise the text under critical receptions later in the day. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think
Spider-Man 3 is something I can get done quicker, given all those cites you provided on the talk page. I'll be getting the DVD too, so we can consolidate references. I'll probably rewrite Batman Begins' filming section and write about the special effects. I wish I had the DVD now: I lended it to my uncle, and we don't see each other often. Still, VFX World has an excellent feature on the film. In addition, I may restructure release from reception, given we have a real lack of box office information.
Alientraveller
19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree he shouldn't have removed the CSD. However, due to his edits it no longer qualified for "no context". I switched it back to afd, since it now has some theoretical claim to notability. Horrorshowj 23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you fix up the hobbit page one more time. -- Cman7792 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
He didn't just remove them, he speedily deleted them on the spot. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:NFCC criterion #8 is a pain. Not to worry. I am concerned about the lack of images on Wikipedia, but this policy is being enforced from the top-down and there isn't much we can do except try to find images that meet policy guidelines. In my own experience, (and YMMV) Alkivar seems to have done a lot of good work, so I wouldn't hold it against him personally. — Viriditas | Talk 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I just saw that they sent in ImageRemovalBot on Fight Club. That sucks. Let it go for now; we'll get through this and get them back up in no time. You have a better shot at including the images in a section about critical commentary per the fair use guidelines. I can easily do this for CoM, but it may take some time to set everything up. — Viriditas | Talk 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That administrator's rashness did make you buckle up though and select some really great images. Every cloud has its silver lining... Alientraveller 08:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am kinda concerned that the connecting of the characters' abilities from Heroes to the list of comic book superpowers is OR by synthesis. I posted my concern here. What are your thoughts on the subject? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Erik...
Thought I would let you know that the article I re-wrote (The Hire) got a "B-rating"! :)
Very cool!
Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions on it!
TabascoMan77 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that perhaps it would be valuable to WP Films if there were an organized subgroup devoted to maintaining and keeping a watch over future film articles. Whether or not it would be considered a task force or a department, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that you'd be a natural candidate to help conceive of such a group. It would also allow you to formally integrate your user-space lists into the project for the benefit of all. What are your thoughts on the matter and who else might be worth consulting on it? (Bignole? I forget if he does future films too or not.) Girolamo Savonarola 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
For both of you, this is a tool that can be used to track accurately if a film has entered production or not. Definitely would use this over IMDb's so-called status attribute, which I've noticed has been belated oftentimes. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't need my patronising you, but that's some excellent work you've done over at User:Erik/FFW; a hell of a lot to take in, but I'll do what I can to help keep an eye on them. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 07:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to introduce... WP:FUTFILM. I have not announced this yet, so as to give you time to tinker and whatnot for at least a few days, and get it into whatever shape you think it needs. As you can also see at the bottom, I've linked to your userspace lists. You may want to consider moving these to the WikiProject space as a subpage of the Future films department, so as to keep things centralized and "open". Enjoy! Girolamo Savonarola 05:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop removing the Tagruato link and calling it original research. The sites link to each other. Granted, it could be reworded, but it shouldn't be removed completely. -- General Holtarna 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I can see why Actor as Role may only be appropriate if additional info is present. If no additional information is present, I've been bolding the role, I don't bold the actor. I must have seen some film articles do it before, because I wouldn't have thought to bold roles on my own. I'll unbold the roles on the articles I've edited and remove the bold formatting on any simple cast lists in film articles I view. Thanks again for notifying me. -- Pixelface 03:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I didn't actually know those templates existed! What I was assuming was that he was trying to add what he thought was relevant info and got pissed that "some noob" was removing his edits. So I tried to keep it amicable. Thanks for the head's up on the templates tho.
Peace,
I noticed you removed the MPAA rating from the article Bee Movie. I don't think it's biased to include the American rating for a film produced in America. Nothing is stopping other editors from adding ratings given to the film in other countries. Placing the MPAA rating in its own section titled Rating may have been biased, but I don't think including " PG" in the article is biased. There is a template that editors can include in film articles to show how a film has been rated in various countries, {{ Infobox movie certificates}}, as seen at Hot Fuzz and other articles. I've added that template to Bee Movie. If you think multiple ratings would qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information, they could be limited to ratings given in predominantly English-speaking countries ( Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States) since this is the English-language Wikipedia. I would not consider it biased if the German-language Wikipedia included the rating given in Germany to a film produced in Germany. I also would not consider it biased if the English-language Wikipedia included the rating given in Germany to a film produced in Germany. -- Pixelface 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So the runtime and release date of a movie is "encyclopedic", but a rating that determines whether a theater refuses minors and can ultimately affect box office grosses is not? In film articles on Wikipedia, alot of information typically comes from the Internet Movie Database. It's a common URL in the External links section, there is a place for it in the Infobox, etc. As far as I know, the Internet Movie Database is only considered unreliable in the case of user ratings. Film certifications are verifiable, a URL surrounded by simple <ref></ref> tags will show up as brackets and a number. The {{ cite web}} template also has room for a quote if you think the ratings need further description. The Internet Movie Database is not the only source for ratings. If you could show me another encyclopedia that includes an entry for Live Free or Die Hard, I think it would help give some insight on what other encyclopedias do or don't do. -- Pixelface 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You redirected Addicted here to it's possible new name Possession .However the producers ,Yari film group have not at this stage renamed it and they still list it as Addicted on their web site [11] and the website SMGFAN , who only post news about SMG projects when it has been offically confirmed , also have had no offical note of a change of title yet.
I tried to change it back to Addicted but my knowledge of redirects isn't sufficient to do that . Garda40 15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the wikipedia page started by me for the G.I. Joe (film) was removed. Why did you specifically decide to challenge my contribution(s)? You will notice that Upcoming films, list not only 2009 films but films in the year 2010, these are clearly not yet in production either, yet they have pages dedicated to them. You should do a system wide edit, if you have such a conviction to adhere to wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egoing ( talk • contribs) 21:51, October 19, 2007
Regarding the article Mortal Kombat: Devastation, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "It was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it has never been to AFD, only speedied. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle ( talk) 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let me thank you and congratulate you on the worklist. I apologize for not having done so sooner; I was distracted when I first saw it, and merely forgot to mention it on later occasions online.
I've been ruminating over the NF guideline for a while, and I was wondering what your thoughts are regarding the seventh Harry Potter film. From what's currently on the page, it seems that it could easily be merged into Harry Potter film series with nothing lost. However, there will be the inevitable gnashing of Potterfan teeth, regardless. And it does seem unlikely that this film won't happen - although of course anything from death of major cast to studio financial problems could happen, however improbable. On the other hand, we have the guideline set up, we've already applied it to other highly anticipated Hollywood films, and applying it consistently will make it less likely for editors to fingerpoint "that's not fair". Whereas the opposite may weaken the guideline's viability. It seems to me that it made sense for us to turn a blind eye to articles which were written before the guideline but were expected to shoot very shortly, but it's been several months now, and this film isn't going to gear up for at least a year or two.
Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola 03:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume the discussion is centralized here. If we are bold in merging Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), we should make the effort as clean and straightforward as possible. This may require some reformatting of Harry Potter film series so the content can fit. We also need to make clear that the film article will be restored when the film enters production and that it is strictly the placement of content in adherence to WP:NF. Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV seem to be the most closely related projects to HP7, so they may be worth mentioning in our merge. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I got a kick out of just reading the WikiProject alone. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha. Speak of the Devil and all that. That's someone's way of telling me to go do the merge. Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted this edit because I'm not sure your reasoning in the edit summary makes sense. The films have been in production for months and the first will be released on DVD Nov. 27th of this year. Aside from being straight to DVD rather than a theatrical release it's pretty much the definition of a future film. Star dust 8212 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Who is your favorite Futurama character? Who is your favorite Transformers character in all series? Who is your favorite actor?( TougHHead 01:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Hey, thanks again for helping out with the Cillian Murphy FAC. I really appreciate that you made the time to do it. -- Melty girl 03:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've de-prodded Crood Awakening and redirected. With "future films" I tend to err on the side of caution: While you're entirely correct that the current article doesn't need to exist, there's very little harm in a redirect. Note that it also means that no-one will (probably) re-create the article. - CygnetSaIad 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha! It took me half an hour of searching earlier in order to find a way of removing the donations box, when all I could have done was have a look at your monobook.css file. Cheers for the other pointers too. Best regards,
Liquidfinale (
Ţ) (
Ç) (
Ŵ)
12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit: If you don't already use it, I've also found
Twinkle to be an invaluable time-saver for quick reverts and issuing warnings. The code is added to your monobook.js file, and can be found
here (doesn't work with Internet Explorer at present).
Liquidfinale (
Ţ) (
Ç) (
Ŵ)
12:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the wiki links to edward norton in the incredible hulk article. This is insane, he's the only one without his name bracked in the cast section and it looks weird and unencyclopedic. So either take the wiki links off the other cast memebers in that part of the article or else leave it alone. annoynmous 18:53, 23 october 2007 (UTC)
The newest ref you added to the article ("Gosling and Clooney drop projects") requires registration to the LA Times. Do you happen to have an alternate link? Thanks, María ( críticame) 19:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Publishers Weekly: [12] WesleyDodds 07:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why these can't be nominated for a speedy delete instead of having to wait the five days. Well, actually I can; the criteria for speedy deletion doesn't seem to have an appropriate section for this kind of thing. Perhaps #G1, which mentions hoaxes. I'm willing to tag the aforementioned articles with it instead of the prod to see what happens. What do you think? Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem; I'm leaving work shortly, but I should find time to do some later tonight. Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Invaluable advice, as always. Thanks, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, especially given that a major role had to be recast right before shooting started. I had done that primarily because almost all year, while the film was being cast, people (usually the usual anons) kept changing it to 2008 films even as it became less likely that it would make 2007, and our justification for the reverts was that IMdB was still saying 2007.
Perhaps we should have a category, "Films with an undetermined release date", for movies that are in production (i.e., PP) or postproduction but have not had a release date set yet. Maybe it could even be added automatically if nothing is entered into the date field in the infobox.
In the meantime, I'll adapt your edit summary into a comment above the cats to deter future such edits. Daniel Case 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I hear you. I created The Devil Wears Prada only several months after shooting had wrapped and a release date had been set ... at that point I felt the available information on the film was outgrowing the section for the film in the novel article and should be spun off. That's worked quite well (I still need to split off the production history as a separate article per consensus I got on the film project talk page ... putting the article together was so intense I still want to work on some other things on my list before I get back to it).
This one was started way back when Peter Jackson bought the rights and it looked like it would actually be made, before he'd even started shooting King Kong, before he'd even started the script. I, personally, would have waited but other editors had other ideas. Daniel Case 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have now unprotected this page as per your request. Regards, Hús ö nd 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Erik. I could use your opinion. I've completely revamped the Hulk article [13], stripping out excessive plot summary in the character history for creator/creative team commentary and outsider analysis from scientific and religious (Jewish) viewpoints. I stripped out the 'personalities of the hulk', instead using them in the course ofthe character histories. I really need feedback. Tenebrae and Doczilla havfe both reviewed already, but a third set of eyes would be truly, and deeply, appreciated. I'm going to try to solicit more feedback before I post the link on the Hulk talk, or jsut BOLDly put it up... ThuranX 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip regarding her Talk page. I made the appropriate changes. Thank you, Swisspass 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't want to be an admin?
—
Wknight94 (
talk)
18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks to you, Bignole, Liquid and so on, I didn't have to do too much. Sorry about jumping the gun on X-Men Origins. Funny title ay? Alientraveller 16:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed your prod and made it into a redirect to the main Kung Fu Hustle page that way if somone searches for it they can find the latest news not just a red link. Whispe ring 17:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
maybe a heads up wopuld have been nice, bub. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you, Alien as well, weigh your thoughts on the current discussion at Talk: Friday the 13th (franchise) about the use of the video game cover that a couple editors want to include. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The October 2007 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. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you noticed that Wildroot (or whatever his/her name is) has been creating articles for all those canceled Batman projects? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)