![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you reverted my addition to The Mist (film), which pointed out that in the original story it was never revealed what created the mist, but in the film (according to the trailer) the source was revealed in a sequence which did not occur in the original story. Since it's a matter of pointing out that certain information exists in one source but does not exist in another, it seemed pretty cut and dried to me. It's easily verifiable -- anyone can look at the trailer or read the story. I can't cite a page number in the story because the sequence does not exist there, and it might be a bit awkward to cite mm:ss for the trailer. But WP:OR does not say that synthesis cannot be used; only that it cannot be used to promote a position. If it could never be used, then we would have to go through every article on television shows and remove any references linking to pop culture ( example) because no external source pointed it out regardless of how obvious the innuendo is, parody or otherwise. Given these considerations, I was wondering what, if anything, would be needed to back this addition up in accordance with standing policy? ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to keep an eye on this one if you aren't already - I only mention it because the press release was a front-page link on Yahoo, so there might be people eager to split it again, probably in ignorance of NF. Girolamo Savonarola 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's ok, it was just for fun. I think the linear tables used at James Bond film series is perfectly fine. I have two Bond books from the library, which I could use to improve the article. It's a GA that must have been promoted ages ago. Alientraveller 18:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think Kirsten Sheridan is too short to yield a DYK? Cheers, Melty girl 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh, the only thing I don't like is saying "it looks similar", as that comes off as more of an "I'm not positive" instead of "it was meant to be". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Erik, you suggested to me that I "italicize newspapers" per WP:MOS and I did that on the American Gangster (film) article, but then you removed the italics. In your edit summary you wrote "Unnecessary italics; if they were required, the Cite news template would be set up to automatically italicize publishers." WP:CITE says "Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online." At that guideline, I see that Scientific American is not italicized in the Harvard example, but is italicized in the footnotes example. I notice that the {{ cite news}} template automatically italicizes the work field, which is for "a column, sub part of issue, or a multi-part work such as a magazine title." The {{ cite web}} template also automatically italicizes the work field, which is for "a book, periodical or website, name of that work." I suppose I am confused as to when The Star-Ledger should be italicized. WP:ITALICS says italics should be used for "Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)." If I've read that guideline and the template documentation correctly, The Star-Ledger would appear as The Star-Ledger when in a paragraph, would be put in the publisher field in the {{ cite news}} template and would appear as The Star-Ledger, and would be put in the work field in the {{ cite web}} template and would appear as The Star-Ledger. Is that correct? I have used the {{ cite web}} template in the past and put newspaper/magazine titles in the publisher field since I consider the newspaper/magazine the publisher of the information, although I guess they belong in the work field. Should I not worry about italicizing newspapers and magazines in references? -- Pixelface 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry to go on about the issue of Valkyrie (film), but I do think that it is important for readers to know where the title comes from and a little more about its connection to the real-life events. There is especially the fact that Valkyrie was not the plan to kill Hitler himself, but the means of taking over the country once he was dead. The central irony was that Hitler had himself approved of Operation Valkyrie, presumably (according to historians, not me) out of concern that foreign workers living in Germany itself might rise up and overthrow the regime. In fact, it was actual German nationals who were now planning to use Valkyrie as part of their coup. Is there any way for me to present a more detailed version of the title's origins without being constantly overruled? Thank you. -- Marktreut 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You say that I have to "provide verifiable content via reliable sources about how and why the filmmakers implemented the title" and its connection to Operation Valkyrie. Well what else could be the link ? That some armour-wearing Norse woman warrior was somehow involved in the plot ? That's absurd. The statement in the Production section: "Valkyrie is titled after Operation Walküre ("Operation Valkyrie"), an operational codename in the film's plot" is rather vague. All I'm trying to do is give more details from the real-life historical point of view, that's all. And I do have verifiable sources as to Operation Valkyrie's origins and the connection to Hitler; which I have previously put in but which you and others have still taken out.-- Marktreut 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, It's rather difficult to compress a suitable explanation to within just one sentence. Here's the best I can do and I have included my sources. If this meets with your approval then I will put it in: "Valkyrie is titled after Operation Walküre (" Operation Valkyrie"), a means by the army could impose martial law and take over the government in the event of trouble within Germany itself. Ironically, Hitler had himself approved the plan, presumably in the event of a revolt by foreign workers. The plotters, actually German nationals, intended to kill Hitler, implement Operation Valkyrie and make peace with the Allies \<ref\>Secret Germany by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, ISBN-10: 0099490064, ISBN-13: 978-0099490067\</ref\>, although Churchill had made it clear that nothing would be acceptable short of unconditional surrender \<ref\>Is Paris Burning? by Larry collins and Dominique Lapierre\</ref\>." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktreut ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I glanced over the rest of the messages she had received, including the one from you about the lack of responses. I just figured it was worth a shot at preventing uploads that will replace ones that meet the criteria, and then they'll just end up getting deleted while the article loses an image. I'm starting to get a little annoyed with the constant messages from bots when a non-free image upload of mine gets orphaned due to vandalism or when an image has an "invalid FUR" due to an article's name be changed for disambiguation. But I'm fixing all of the occurrences, and I think I'm gaining a lot more messages since I've been reuploading many images that were too large and deleting the original, which means I get the messages. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. -- Nehrams2020 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a link in the Hulk talk; tomorrow night I expect to put it up, unless there's major objection. ThuranX 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, I was going to use the basic warning... then I thought again - the anonymous editor had put a link to a site where one could download an illegal copy of the movie, and that sort of thing really annoys me! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought, why not, I have the sources. It sounds good, hope it's not too scary or gory for me though. Will Smith is one of my favourite actors. It bodes well, as I enjoyed his last contribution with Akiva Goldsman, I, Robot. The I must be a good luck charm. Alientraveller 18:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, it appears IAL was just the start of cleaning up the winter films I've developed an interest in. Cleaned up Sweeney Todd, I'm now turning my attention to Beowulf. Are you planning to see either? I hope Todd isn't too gory, and that Beowulf will be a good way to introduce a younger family member to the poem. Alientraveller 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I like to show how things like in development, at least in comparison to their finish. Production photos always seem to exhibit more real world tone than screenshots. The one you picked was from the DVD. I don't think there are any "free" images of the Batsuit. The promo might be the better one, but I don't plan to put any new image up until I have a chance to sit down and get all the information from the DVD to add that to the section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been planning to merge Halo (film) with Halo (series) for a while now, going so far as to create something offline which could be used, but I've held off for now due to the length of the latter. There's a lot of information about the film, plenty of it even verifiable, and merging the film into the series might make the length of that article rather excessive. Do you think this is a case in which WP:SUMMARY would be invoked over the recommendations of WP:NF, and a separate article actually justified? Thanks, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 08:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, film articles are much easier to keep an eye on; the TV ones can be a little overwhelming, and I'm resolved to avoiding the articles for most of my favourite television shows, such as Buffy, Angel and Galactica, lest I end up spending even more time here than I do presently (plus, I've seen what some of the more rabid fans are like when you try to interfere with their article and I haven't the stomach for that fight right now). Babylon 5 is pretty much my one exception; fortunately, the creator has posted extensively online about the show since about 1991, talking extremely candidly about every aspect of the production. That leaves very little open to interpretation and thus makes maintaining the article easier than it might otherwise have been (which is why it was a surprise to see the state some of it was in only six months ago). Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 09:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Bring it on. Nothing disturbing about spurting blood, I've seen it all before in Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and 300, and if it's going to look as silly as it sounds, so be it. My only fear is that we see the actual pie-making process, which is the gruesome and gory part of it. Anyway, a trailer can do wonders for one's expectations. Why did I ever doubt Burton's eye for sweetly beautiful imagery? It's Victorian London for goodness sake, how much more Burton can you get?
Anyway, as for Beowulf, I'm curious, but as an animation fan I've always took to heart what Disney once said: that the key wasn't imitation, but reminding an audience of something. They may be barking up the wrong tree. Still, Zemeckis is brilliant and we're talking about one of the most influential tales in all fiction. So yeah, let me see those articles, some casting info would be nice. Alientraveller 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And where is the Premise section that you mention when you, yet again, take out all references to the origins of the working title of this film? I do not see what the problem is. How many other "Valkyries" were involved that make it doubtful that my interpretation is not the right one? When a film is made based on real events it is helpful for people to know what those events were and where Operation Valkyrie came in. I'm trying to put forward a useful historical point here. Is there any way we can compromise on this?-- Marktreut 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A pre- and a post-release section sounds like a good idea; I'm leaving work now, but I'll have a look at it this evening and see if I can think of any other ways it can be presented. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone felt the amount of information The Hobbit had on two films that may not come to pass was biased. So I moved it to LOTR film trilogy as a way of just showing the trilogy's popularity has prompted development of other Tolkien films. It's a no-win situation. Alientraveller 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the "I don't wanna be an admin" box on your userpage. I think it's a shame, as I'm fairly confident you'd breeze right through the process. Even if you stuck to improving film articles, I'm sure the sysop bit would come in handy sometimes. *shrug*
If you reconsider, give me a shout. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent; I check the Google News listing every day for it, but didn't think to check there. Rottentomatoes says it's "currently filming" but it's not strong enough to make me recreate the article as yet. Thanks again, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem; I actually considered afterwards that it was impolite of me to barge in and make the change; you were in the middle of creating the article and would have spotted it for sure. I've copy-pasted from other film articles too, resulting in my original version of the State of Play article saying the film was about "a monster attack on New York" in the premise section. :) Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised that the 2001 movie page had no thoughts about Clarke's thoughts by way of fiction ...Childhoods End ... and his non fiction on advanced extraterrestrial civilizations , sorry my little essay was so badly worded. The idea must have verifiable sources since I can remember talking with science fiction fans about the connection of 2001 to Childhood's end as far back as 1968! I don't think it is original with me.
Say I have some additions to the science section on the 2001 movie entry, but would like to know how to get them cleared so they actually get posted there! I have worked in manned space flight for 40 years and know a bit about the science in 2001. Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert.a.jackson ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look at the resources on the talk page when I get a chance. Thanks for acknowledging my work! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
I saw your developing a new article called User:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club. You may want to add this text/sources/interpretations to it:
Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk was a graduate of The Landmark Forum, or "The Forum", for short, and this later influenced his work. [1] [2] [3] In his review of the film adaptation of the book, Roger Ebert likened the character Tyler Durden to Werner Erhard. [4]. Ebert wrote that Tyler Durden was: "..a bully--Werner Erhard plus S & M, a leather club operator without the decor." [4] Fight Club film producer Ross Grayson Bell believes that his "creative synchronicity" with writer Palahniuk was due to their shared experience of attending The Forum. [3]
Let me know what you think. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mach 5 in film.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Doczilla 08:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (Image has been orphaned, replaced by image that is not under copyright elsewhere.) Doczilla 08:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
first at all: thank you! i'm a wikipedian in the wikipedia ... so.. but i'm only been in wikipedia for a short time. But, its not sooo new for me! if you want to see my german page (if you can read it ^^) than click [2] .. but i'm going to translate it completly in english..
and sorry about my english (thats the main-reason why i didn't put the book in... ).. i'm german, and my english isn't soo good, but i'm making an exchange year right now to improve it! (i'm in IN)
so.. still thank you! -- .læraðr 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thank you again ^^. i think the commands, and the complete "background-system" (i don't know how to call it...) is mostly the same.. the only difference that i've seen, is that the english wiki has much more articles and espetialy projects... (if you - for example - watch the englisch Saw VI talk page and compare it with the german one.. you don't see all these project on the german one...)
and its sometimes better, .. for example in music, i normaly watch both sides, if i want to have information about a band.. espetally the gerne, because in the german one its.. sometimes a little bit .. odd... i don't know.. ^^ so.. /spam off -- .læraðr 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious, you made this edit saying you were removing link spam yet you removed most of the content. Was that a error on your part? Kwsn (Ni!) 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I just stole the infobox from another movie, so I guess it didn't have all the necessary categories. Jauerback 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is already close to GA concerning the number of sources, so I'm going to finish the last few steps to bring it to GAN. Do you have any other sources that you saved in the past for the article? If not, I can continue to search online. I already found some sites for the visual effects for the production section, but figured if you already had something else to include, I should add it. -- Nehrams2020 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I need to know why you are choosing to delete the Phantasm V page? I have 2 sources and a few links that talk about the fifth installment. There's no reason to delete it. -The Correctonator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctonator ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I glanced over a minor article in this month's Empire, and it's got something about The Fountain and its atheistic themes, with an Aronofsky quote. I'm not sure how to include it, so I'll leave it to you, the steward of the article:
"I'm Godless... It's about this endless cycle of energy and matter, tracing back to the Big Bang. We're all just borrowing this matter and energy for a little bit, until it goes back into everything else, and that connects us all." [5]
By the way, I've been sorting out information on Dragon Ball. I hope it all doesn't look too cheesy, but I don't expect talking pigs on screen really. Good work on Surf Ninjas, I'd never heard of it. Alientraveller 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Although tommorow is really my birthday, since I haven't went to bed yet. But whatever! :P Paul 730 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message on the template's talk page to that effect. Either it should be reworded entirely to something other than a spoiler warning, or deleted. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 14:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a good copyeditor, but structurally and in terms of sourcing, it looks very good. Be sure to review image caption punctuation per WP:MOS#Images. I'm not sure why you're worried about size; it's currently at 33 kB readable prose, within the 30 to 50KB WP:SIZE guidelines, so if you need to add more, it should be OK. Sorry to take so long! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' ( talk) 09:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise, I am not sure I could have tendered something like this otherwise. Every time I cross paths with that kid, I've felt like I was devolving. I don't like the way I feel when I am editing with (read: against) him. I think there are only three people I've met in WP that can do that to me. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not sure whether I'm going to put this into the film's article or for a franchise article, because it's certainly notable that Michael France really sent the film on its father-son direction, but I'm not sure about Jonathan Hensleigh's giant bug movie. Also, would you prefer the quotebox to keep France's comments on Hulk as a comedy, or his thematic intent instead? Alientraveller ( talk) 16:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Erik, I really appreciate the feedback. And I also appreciate your commentary and suggestions which I find very helpful in knowing how to best improve the article. - Classicfilms ( talk) 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delist both articles? i don't see a discussion on WP:GAR. If this was discussed somewhere else (??) please show me. - Yamanbaiia ( talk) 20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I read the cited info on that Norton/Bixby thing, and they don't specifically say 'Bixby who played the Hulk', they're talking about how Norton and Bixby have similar empathic attitudes as actors or some such actory nonsense. Leaving that Bixby played Banner is more factual, and avoids the idea of referring to the Hulk as meaning both Banner and Hulk. ThuranX ( talk) 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying something that I'm not sure many understand. At
Spoiler you stated vis-a-vis the purpose of the Plot section: "Basically, it only exists to give shape to aspects like production, reception, etc. It does not exist to tell the readership what the film's about for the sake of seeing it, only for the sake of comprehending other information in the article." For a while now I've been of the opinion that Plot sections in many film articles (at least those for popular films) are far too detailed and contrary to
fiction guidelines as laid out in Novels style guidelines. I'd like to see many film Plot sections truly summarized — with details appropriate for support of the Response, Themes and Production sections — but I fear quite a few editors would find such a move unpopular. Thanks for your many valuable contributions to film articles.
Jim Dunning |
talk
22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that smaller films that have not yet reached development ought to be deleted, but articles with big-name actors have a better chance of being considered notable enough for inclusion. I would recommend that you take these articles to AfD to get community consensus. Glass Cobra 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm always getting myself into trouble for not being nice :P -- Closedmouth ( talk) 01:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the list of periodicals for further info on Unfaithful. You mentioned contacting you for any help tracking any of them down. I would be very interested... esp. that American Cinematographer and Creative Screenwriting articles. -- J.D. ( talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I still keep an eye on The Prestige article, but haven't been in a position to add anything to it, so I'd be interested in anything you come up with. I'm planning to work on the novel's article, so I'm re-reading it in preparation. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help with the film article. Thanks. (PS: I was amazed at the amount of recent activity on Preity Zinta!)
Jim Dunning |
talk
04:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be more than welcomed to find out as to how you were able to read those magazine articles. It would be pretty fun to read those and expand the article. I will start editing tomorrow to fit your requirements. Thanks for your cooperation, I guess. Wildroot 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And people will argue who should get more prominence: the source or the film's actual script. I'm fine with it as is. Alientraveller ( talk) 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of This Mist (I've just read the article and that's some good work you've done there), at some point in the future you should perhaps double-check the cast list you've compiled from The New York Times' online film guide; for example, their entry for Golden Compass still lists Nonso Anozie and Charlie Rowe as voicing Iorek Byrnison, when in fact Ian McKellen has taken over the role, so it would appear they're not infallible. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I brought Suryamukhi to AfD just before I had to undergo a week offline (the pain...), and it seems to have survived despite the clear notability guidelines on future films. Do you have any suggestions as to what to do next? The article makes it clear that the project is not necessarily on a clear path to immediate production - were it obviously about to start, I'd leave it be. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Could I trouble Alientraveller, Bignole and yourself to check out an image i just uploaded? the Santa Clause page was in some need of a modern Santa image, so I uploaded this. I think i covered my bases, copying the rationale from another Nast Santa image, but better safe than sorry. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It's like there's two Don Murphys, isn't there? The guy who sherperded Transformers to the big screen and decided fans wanted Peter Cullen and Frank Welker back, and then this internet troll. Frightening. Anyway, I believe Wikipedia to have a friendly atmosphere, and it's nice to assume as good faith as possible with people who share the same interests. Now if only people wouldn't whine about good work as with here.
Anyway, I have a query. I'm culling my backlog with Prince Caspian, and I was wondering how to include information on Dwarf costumes. Should I include them in the cast, considering we have three unique cases of black dwarf, red dwarf and half-dwarf? Alientraveller ( talk) 17:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that there are plenty of easily accessible sources out there, but since you're the film buff I was curious if you had already compiled any sources for Ticket to Heaven ? If not, that's cool, it probably won't take me long to dig up twenty or so and flesh out the article a bit, might involve a library trip or so. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage ( talk) 06:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
Is there a separate article for the Final Cut? I got the impression from discussion on the talk page that there had been one, but that it was deleted sometime in the past. If there isn't one, perhaps it could be created, which would allow us to shorten that section in the main article. My impression is that, at least of late, that particular section is the target of more edits than the rest of the article. Am I offbase here? I would like to know your opinion. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It was pretty good. I went to my g/f's parents. I actually didn't eat all that much, at least not as much as I've done before. The weekend isn't over yet, though, and I'm getting annoyed with this FSU/ UF game. How was your T-Day? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest leaving the citation in the plot of Million Dollar Baby for now as a compromise. It also doesn't harm the article for it to be there. Pixelface demanded a citation for the section earlier today and so I added one. Pixelface simply doesn't like the citation since it torpedoes his argument completely. But to be honest, I don't think any citation would have satisfied him. But this way, it demonstrates that he is being completely unreasonable. -- Farix ( Talk) 22:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You asked me why I think plot summaries are original research. I don't think all plot summaries are original research, just the ones that don't cite secondary sources. The policy on no original research says "Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts" and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and "all material must be verifiable" and "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." If editors watch a film and write a plot summary themselves, unless that plot summary has been previously published in print, I think it's original research. WP:OR says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." A film is certainly a source, but it's not a reliable third-party source independent of the subject. A film is a primary source, but when editors report on it, they become a secondary source and editors cannot cite themselves. WP:OR says "Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources." The guideline on reliable sources says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't a think a film qualifies. One could assume that the editors who wrote a plot summary watched a film, but a reader has no way of knowing that. If a plot summary has no citations, it's not really verifiable for a reader unless editors include audio or video clips of the film. WP:RS says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." If a plot summary first appears on Wikipedia, that's considered a self-published source. The WP:PSTS portion of WP:OR says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." although that portion of policy is currently under debate. WP:OR says "Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criteria for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth." It also says "Verifiability was also promoted as a way to ensure that notable views would be represented, under the assumption that the most notable views were easiest to document with sources." WP:OR says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia." If a plot summary has been previously published, it should be easy to find and cite the secondary sources that wrote it. The {{ OriginalResearch}} tag says "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." If a plot summary contains no citations, it's unverified. We could let every reader or every editor check facts themselves, and then I suppose no citations would ever be necessary. Readers could try to call Bill Gates up on the phone and verify Microsoft's net income for 2007, but that's unnecessary if a secondary source has already reported that information. I suppose a plot summary of a film can be verified by watching the film. But on Wikipedia, "verifiable" means "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." WP:V says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Unless an editor cites a screenplay, or a script with a page number, a reader has no way of finding the text that supports the article content. WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:V says "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." WP:V says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations." Blogs are not considered reliable sources, because anyone can make their own blog and write whatever they want. On Wikipedia, editors can also write whatever they want. We have to provide citations so readers know material is correct. A plot summary that cites a blog would not be acceptable, and a plot summary that cites nothing at all is also not acceptable. I know that the style guide for films says "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film" but I don't think that should be in the style guide. The film is a source, but it's not a print source, it's not a third-party source. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source", but it also says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research". An unpublished personal observation is original research. It also says "All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources." The guideline on writing about fiction says "It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation." If an editor re-tells a story without any analysis (which requires secondary sources) it may be construed as a derivative work. I have noticed Featured Articles with unsourced plot summaries, but I don't think unsourced plot summaries are supported by Wikipedia's three main policies. If someone writes a plot summary, they should be able to support their material with something besides "I watched the film myself." Plot summaries should not be an editor's own personal observations — that's original research. Speaking of the Million Dollar Baby article, that Plot section needs to cite secondary sources to show that material has been previously published. -- Pixelface ( talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent comment on my talk page. I guess we can respectfully disagree. I suppose I look more to the guideline on reliable sources for guidance, which says articles should have third-party sources. I agree that all editors write their own prose based on how they look at sources, but with a reference to previously published text, readers can see exactly what the editor was writing from. I don't think that is possible when citing a film, explicitly or implicitly. I do try to assume good faith about contributions, I just don't think blind faith is necessary. I think readers should not have to put their trust in anonymous editors that material is accurate. And I don't think readers should have to watch every film they read about on Wikipedia in order to verify the film article. Thank you again for mentioning my work on Critical reception sections. I really haven't included quotes in very many articles because it takes alot of time, and many people have said the sections are too long. It's something that can be removed so easily by anyone, so it can end up being just a big waste of my time. -- Pixelface ( talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. Be sure that I'll continue to draw on your help and experience on any other films articles I decide to try my hand at improving. As for State of Play, I deliberately chose to focus on that when I first joined in order to help me learn the ropes on Wikipedia, rather than from a special interest in the project itself; at the time it wasn't a film that was receiving a lot of attention, so it was a perfect choice for me to adopt. As time went on, I found myself more interested in the film itself and was 'very disappointed when I learned of Pitt's departure. Still, as I said the other day, if nothing else good has come of this, it'll serve as an excellent example the next time you're arguing for the enforcement of the notability guidelines for films. As an aside, it wasn't until yesterday that I realised it was Thanksgiving weekend; hope you had a good one. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 19:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up; I will adjust the Manhunter article accordingly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this edit. It seems that StarWars.com isn't really that reliable a source of info, specifically because the provenance of the info provided there seems questionable. What's your take on it? (Bignole and Alientraveller, please feel free to jump in). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Given the most recent developments, should this be merged with De Palma? I could understand maybe looking the other way on the NF violation when it seemed ready to start, but being as it's stalled (and this is exactly why we in theory shouldn't be "looking the other way"), maybe this article is obviously premature. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for those, I'll try to make use of them (though I spent an hour or so today wandering around the periodicals section of my university library trying to find old issues of Sight & Sound!). To be honest I'm not sure which way the article will go; there's not as much thematic analysis on it as there is for Nolan's other films, but there's plenty on his direction style so I can try to gather a section together on that. Additionally, there is a lot on story and style comparisons between it and the original version (which I haven't actually seen yet... ). Brad ( talk) 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I follow your logic on the naming for American Gangster, but I was curious what your thoughts were on this situation. Morningside Heights redirects to Morningside Heights, Manhattan with the disambiguation page at Morningside (disambiguation) and breadcrumb links to the Toronto neighborhood and the disambiguation page. Should this be changed similarly to American Gangster or is it possible that at some point in the future a similar system will be setup for the film? Just curious. Thanks for being patient and laying out your thoughts on the AG discussion. ~ Paul C/ T + 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm nearly finished with the two projects. I have a question. Of course there are unanimous links you left for Batman Forever. I cannot add these as I have no idea how. You are far too busy with more important film projects. I'm open anytime you feel like. Anyway what happens after I'm finished correcting the errors? Do you go through the article once more and see for yourself or what? I don't know damn.
Something I noticed here. This is very similar as to what you made for this. This is why I feel Batman Forever shouldn't be delisted anymore. I believe we need to take it off. See if you can fit this into your busy schedule. Wildroot ( talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Erik:
Links to paid subscription sites that require payment for articles don't make for suitable references, nor are they in the spirit or keeping of Wikipedia. WikiTracker ( talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm removing the section, as it doesn't need to be discussed more. When I'm finished with my DVDs, we should have discussions more often. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for the assist there, you Big Vandal, you. - Love, Sherlock (lol) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the New York Post considered a reliable source in America? I just checked some information I added previously for the Angels and Demons article, and learnt the newspaper was a tabloid. That'd be like citing The Sun for me (though granted, numerous Doctor Who rumours they posted were true). Who are the more reliable papers in America and who aren't? Alientraveller ( talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Good job on Body of Lies. Meanwhile, I've cited my newly received issue of Empire: at least we've now cleared the whole "Joker - permanent face or not" controversy. Alientraveller 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for removing the photos on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29. Unfortunately, another editor named Jossi keeps putting one of the photos back in. I really believe that either all of the photos stay, or they all go. The original hardcover photo suffices and the others are redundant. I would be grateful if you could eliminate them all again.
Incidentally, Jossi has admitted to having personal "opinions" on Golb on another page, and to "throwing oil on the fire"--is it entirely appropriate for him to be involved in editing this page? Critical Reader ( talk) 22:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. But I might wanna change the "away" message as I'm watching more than one DVD box set. TheBlazikenMaster 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Eric! I was pleased to see your message on my talk board. How are you? Hey, by the way, I didn't coin "verifibullies"...I did "ErikBigNolePedia". :) I'm glad that it has critical commentary. I think that page was missing something without SOME image of The Joker on it. It just felt naked without it. The editing is going great. My "The Hire" page got upgraded to a "B" status! :) I think it needs some pics to illustrate it a bit but I'm not good at making tables or providing rationale. Anyway...that's how it's goin'. I hope you're well, my friend! TabascoMan77 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The
November 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
02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I must say my first reaction to your message was a little bit of anger. I spent quite some time trying to fill in the extremely poor plot summary for Sunshine, and next thing I know I have someone saying they didn't really appreciate my contribution. This is the first time this has happened to me, but there has been other BS on wikipedia which has made me think twice about making contributions in the past.
However, this is more or less a "last straw" scenario.
I can read the section you quoted for me. It clearly states but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT MINIMAL. I don't know if you are some kind of overbearing martinet who likes to "control" things or you simply did not like my edit, but when I read the guidelines for Wikipedia's plot summary sections, I didn't see anything but the word "should be" which meant where possible - and that is not the case here IMO.
The plot summary for Sunshine was both lacking certain details and in some ways deceptive - it was certainly highly deficient. Sunshine is not a simple, straightforward film that can be summarized in the 600 words (and that is nothing more than a SUGGESTION) - the evidence was clear from the weaknesses of the summary that was there. There were numerous plot/filming points which are mentioned on other portions of the page that made no sense to anyone who had not actually seen the film due to missing information in the plot summary.
Obviously, I must have stepped on your toes on some pet project that you feel belongs to you. I noticed you have numerous edits in the history of the page. You have an idea in your head that there is some "rule" that must be followed, and I don't agree with you - that is not my interpretation of the section you quoted. Popping onto my user page to tell me I've done something wrong because you feel you have some kind of ownership of a page is outrageous - and you didn't even make any expression of THANKS for improving the section.
So - the answer is no. I won't go back and cut back on the summary. It is within the guidelines and breaks no rules. If you want to muddle it up by removing salient points to make it like it was, knock yourself out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CokeBear ( talk • contribs) 23:10, November 30, 2007
I really don't know, but it's coming along fantastically. Let me know when you want to go to FA. Obviously the lead needs a rewrite, but I think you've improved there. Alientraveller 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is looking very good. I just found the second paragraph a bit meh without any real focus or anything that would interest a reader. More specific things like shooting locations would be worthy of a lead. I think the themes and the critical reaction is certainly more important. Alientraveller 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know that I created my very first article. It's about Ethan Hunt's partner-in-crime from the Mission: Impossible movies, Luther Stickell. Take a look and let me know how you like it. :) TabascoMan77 00:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I found this apparent interview with a guy who worked on the MST3K film Zombie Nightmare. Does it look like a reliable enough source for the artice? -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Does it look GA quality, or should I not even bother trying to use it?" -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 02:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have userfied the article and included a copy of the article history on the talk page per the guidelines recommendations. Let me know if you need anything else, and I hope that helps you continue to improve the article for FA status. By the way, congrats on the new GA. -- Nehrams2020 03:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has made it his mission to include the trivia on the Hitman movie article. I'de appreciate you're help, as I can no longer revert. DurinsBane87 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't wanna comment on "I tagged the article a lot."? Surely you are a movie fan, and must have something to say about it. TheBlazikenMaster 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Speak of the devil with false information: King Kong Vs. Jaws. Alientraveller ( talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi
I know what you're trying to say, but the producer said that they will try to release it by that time. It hardly seems likely to be released next year (2008) because of the WGA strike. Also, who's to say the other films aren't also going to be delayed. We don't know this. Thanks, anyway. Please keep it there, or move it to 2010 or something. However, I understand if you remove it. Thanks anyway, -- EclipseSSD ( talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
Hi there!
This is regarding the Fight Club film article and the LOCE request. Looking at the length, the organization, and the list of references (!), I'd say this article has got a lot of potential (FAC?). I'd love to work with you to ce it, but I see a few users have already begun on it. So the questions are these:
Thanks!
-- Malachirality ( talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Good call on the Jaws/King Kong madness. Takes a man to do that. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on nothing more but my own gut feeling, I would think that a 10% divergence would be enough for a separate cream of the crop entry (I think Batman Begins must have levelled out since you last looked at its entry: 84% vs. 82%; creditable scores for any film, let alone a superhero one). I can sort of see the guy's point about explaining the ratings. I suppose if I'd never heard of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic before, I'd be a smidgeon confused until reading their respective entries, and so it probably doesn't hurt to keep the short descriptions. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 16:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I've haven't yet fallen foul of WP:3RR during my time here, so I perhaps haven't paid enough attention to counting my reverts. I'll make sure I keep an eye out. Thanks again, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Gah, only this morning I told an editor "to think of Wikipedia not as an outlet for any real-world anger or annoyance, but as an escape from it. Taking a few seconds to read an intended edit summary or talk page comment back to yourself can make all the difference to how you're perceived" and then I go and leave an irate message for TheGoonSquad in response to a snarky (but ultimately inconsequential) comment from him on my talk page.. Your advice to him was much more constructive, and I'll do well to follow suit in the future. Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You tell me on my page, that underworld 3 is not comeing out in 2010? Can you tell where it comeing out. Most sites on google said it comeing out on 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 ( talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for keeping me updated. :) — Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
On the most recent edits, I reverted Helpsloose because it wasn't mentioned in the article. Could you be involved in this? I really think you agree that it should be mentioned in the article, I didn't wanna start dumb edit war, and I'm way too tired to start a discussion on the movie talk page, so I came to you. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, i think it's not so much a post- World's Finest relationship, but a more intelligent exploration and continuation of it. All of the issues (from both Batman's and Superman's private reflections on the other) refer to their previous and long-term experiences with one another. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notice your comment on my talk page you sent 12 days ago. I did add the critical quotes to the Eastern Promises and The Brave One (2007 film) articles. I also expanded the reception sections on The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film), Superbad (film), Next (film), Enough, Mr. Bean's Holiday, Jackass: The Movie, No End in Sight, The Ex (2007 film), and The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. On The Ex (2007 film), I focused more on finding similar sentiments seen in multiple reviews and I wrote prose and cited the reviews. I really haven't added quotes lately. I've got people telling me that they're too long or that we can't quote so much. It just takes too long to put together and I'm not really seeing the benefit. Which 10 or so critics to cite out of 140? If we link to a review aggregator, readers can find reviews there. I do think that terms like "fresh", "rotten", and "metascore" should be avoided. Many readers don't know what they mean, and those terms might even be trademarked. I noticed there was some confusion over those terms at The Golden Compass article. The terms could be wikilinked and be redirects to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but I just find it easier to say "X% of critics gave the film positive reviews based on Y reviews" when speaking of Rotten Tomatoes and say "the film received an average score of X out of 100 based on Y reviews" when speaking of Metacritic. I liked the work you did on Surf Ninjas. I'm impressed. :) -- Pixelface ( talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Giving the relevant header, I've got a proposal for I Am Legend. Most of the reviews I'm looking at suggest the film's first hour or so is more introspective than the last half-hour. So why not pick a very select few of critics, and analyze it as such? So like their perspective on Smith's performance in one paragraph, and another on the ending. It would be a refreshing approach to the usual "everybody's two cents" to try to create a sense of consensus. Alientraveller ( talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm becoming confused. Both Variety and THR reported the film would began filming last month, but it's not listed in THR's production listings, either domestic or international. We have the Mexican newspaper discussing a January start, but this could mean location filming. Your two cents? Should I just trust the trades' announcement and unmerge? Alientraveller ( talk) 15:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, THR has confirmed Dragonball is shooting. Alientraveller ( talk) 10:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is? Thanks for telling me! Do you know who created it?-- Cojin ( talk) 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems like it's gonna be some type of whale type beast though. When looking through the Slusho site they say something about whales.-- Cojin ( talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What's the deal with those Viral sites anyway? How do they really promote a film? By giving it an aura of mystery?-- Cojin ( talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
...is now on the project sidebar and in the new announcements section. Just thought you'd want to know! :) Regards, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't really aware of Google Alerts, but I've set a few up now and I'm certain they'll be useful (though if there's even a scrap of information anywhere I don't already have about State of Play, I'll be very surprised). It's also good to see Future Films is up and running now; hopefully we can set a standard with that which other editors will follow, especially with regard to WP:NF. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 10:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha. It's beginning to look more and more like one of those projects which will be dogged by bad press, exaggerated rumour and speculation (nothing is confirmed, but I can't see how Helen Mirren can stay on board with her schedule as it is, and if she goes, the coverage will only get worse). Still, if nothing else, it should provide plenty of information for the article when the film finally gets around to shooting. Affleck is no Norton (few are none are), but this is the right kind of role for him to be taking at this stage in his career, and if he can pull it off it might finally see the completion of his rehabilitation in the eyes of the movie-going public after the "
Bennifer" years.
Liquidfinale (
Ţ) (
Ç) (
Ŵ)
19:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I want to get an advice about future movies. Can you name me all reliable sites? Because I really wanna know of good reliable sites that give good info about movies, and is edited by professionals. Do you know of such site? I would appreciate if you named me more than one, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that I'm gonna make the article, but YES, YES, YES! [3] Alientraveller ( talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the stub for Andrew Henry's Meadow had been deleted. Since that is the title of a classic children's book (not just a stalled film project), I recreated the article as a redirect to the author, Doris Burn. You may want to list it among the redirects on your blacklist page. -- Dystopos ( talk) 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Tintin trilogy has its own article on the main page of the French language wikipedia; http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil . So this is really different standards between French and English language : worthy of main page in one case, forbidden in the other case.... Hektor ( talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Just saw it at the IMAX this last week, and it was awsome! the Joker's bank heist is brlliant, funny and damaged in a way that I cannot really explain. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you mentioned the TFD at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films. Are you also going to mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television? I take it you'll be contacting the editor who created the template, all of the editors who worked on that template, the editors who argued in favor of it at this TFD, the admin who declared it had consensus, and the editors who rewrote the spoiler guideline around it? -- Pixelface ( talk) 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Gah man, you know I'm no good with these sorts of policy guidelines or what not. I mean, I already have difficulty with editors who think "it should be that way because this other article does it this way", but each article has its own shape depending on how much info is avaliable. In any case, don't you think this whole anti-spoiler movement might have gotten out of hand? Wikipedia isn't censored, yes, but it should be easy to use too. But I leave it to you. So, not distracted from that peer review yet are you? Haha, naughty me and MovieMadness. Alientraveller ( talk) 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Love, Sherlock. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are using an online counter, than it probably is not accurate. My real count is 28,100+, but Kate's Tool has it listed as lower. I can only assume this is because they don't keep track of your edits, but actually search Wikipedia's articles for your name in the edit history. Well, if a page is deleted then your history is theoretically gone, like when I deleted the sandbox that I was using to write Smallville (season 1), which had a few hundred edits. Your "My Preferences" has a more accurate edit counter. Maybe you'll be inside 400 with that number. :) Oh, if you had not noticed, I've been MIA for a few days. My computer is crappying-out on me (on g/f's laptop right now). I'm also going to my cousin's wedding today and won't be back till tomorrow. Anyway, the point was I'm giving an explaination for any tardy replies. Also, in case I don't get on here before then, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. That goes for everyone else that reads this as well; if you don't celebrate Christmas...well, suppliment any day you like. ;) BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Erik, you get around this burg more than I, so you probably know where to find this quickly. Are translations to English considered OR? I recall seeing something about a process for translating other-language-WP articles to en-WP, but can't find it now. There's an article which uses its French-WP analog as the starter dough (acknowledged by the primary contributor), so I'm unsure of its accuracy. Thoughts?
Jim Dunning |
talk
15:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you chip in here? I think this would be a good way to continually improve our understanding of what a cast list is. Alientraveller ( talk) 21:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, go start a new topic at WP:MOSFILMS. I definitely agree it's better to just link trailers for upcoming films, otherwise, only product placement or merchandise is notable. Alientraveller ( talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? An edit war? This is crazy. Someone else has been posting false information which I am attempting to correct and you revert the content back to the false information and send me a warning? I have factually proved everything I have stated in the Talk section already. If you would read the changes that I made and follow the Talk thread I think you would certainly reinstate my edit and send me an apology. JohnnieYoung ( talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
eric, since the hobbit movie has been confirmed, a separate article page must be made for it. -- Cman7792 ( talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I came across Hard Candy (film) when cleaning up linkspam (TrailerAddict.com) and noticed that an effort was being made with this film article. It looks good so far -- I was wondering if you were in need of resources to continue improving the article, as that's my fortitude. Let me know if you do, and I can put a list together for you. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I saw your message in response to the bot. Do you need some help? — Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Carry on London, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested by recreation of the article after the first PROD deletion. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{ prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Gran2 ( talk · contribs) has opened a peer review. Would you be so kind as to comment? The article is really strong and could easily pass FAC now. Alientraveller ( talk) 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be a voice of reason, so as a Wikipedia novice I'm turning to you for advice. Alientraveller keeps deleting reviews and truncating others I added to the article Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street without any reasonable justification (and then denies having done it despite the fact the history proves he has). It appears to me he simply will not be happy with the article unless it reads exactly the way he deems fit. On my talk page he accused me of having a problem with WP:OWN but I think it's he who's in the wrong here. On the Sweeney discussion page I asked him to direct me to policy re: how many reviews can be included and how long they can be and his answer was to use common sense, but apparently it's his common sense that rules. I'm new, I'm trying to learn the ropes, but I don't think he's treating my edits fairly. If I'm absolutely wrong I'll back off, but I honestly feel like he's bullying me. He keeps accusing me of making edits I never did, and he certainly isn't helping me by refusing to respond to my requests or answer my questions. Thank you very much for your help. MovieMadness ( talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Your civility and warm hearted patience amazes me to no end. Alientraveller ( talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
I hope you understand that my revert was not intended to be disruptive, as I presented the passage on the talk page for wider analysis. This is just a mild dispute about content, so there's no need to suggest vandalism on anyone's part. (Speaking from experience, that kind of implication is never favorable.) I'm positive that all editors involved want an updated and accurate article, so hopefully the my revision is a step closer to that. Feel free to weigh in, or even revert wholesale -- I'll give you that one. ;) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
BIGNOLE
(Contact me) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Paul
730 is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Alientraveller (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Arcayne
(cast a spell) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Arcayne/ECard}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Liquidfinale (
Ţ) (
Ç) (
Ŵ) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
As an FYI, our Eagle Eye buddy got indefinitely blocked, so hopefully, we won't have to worry about his vandalism anymore (at least until he creates a new account). Oh, and Merry Christmas. Jauerback ( talk) 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Erik, thank you for contacting me prior to editing the article. I feel that the cover should be included because it can be confused with Jay-Z's American Gangster. If you don't agree with me, feel free to revert my edit. Daniil Maslyuk ( talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I'm compiling full text of reviews and analyses
here for this film. You're welcome to it if you're looking for source material (I'm still organizing and adding to it, so bear with me). What did you think of I Am Legend?
Jim Dunning |
talk
16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Just saw Legend, and last act wasn't as bad as some have maintained. It was a given they'd never go down the route of the novel, with either the plot or the ending, not with a $150 million budget, and arming oneself with that knowledge should have enabled one to try to enjoy the film for what it was. And what it was, was perfectly adequate. Ultimately more a War of the Worlds than a Children of Men, it nevertheless features some reasonable jump-scares enlivened by some a couple of nice shots (the quick cuts to the SnorriCam as Smith legs it from the CGI beasties) and a well-constructed (if derivative) NY playground. In summary then: not shit. 6/10. Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 01:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Has it been captioned yet, so you can see it? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the comment could have been lifted straight from the talk page for Golden Compass, and the change appeared on my watchlist right above one for that, so it's not surprising the conflation occurred, as any religious allusions in I Am Legend are likely pretty vague, and I'd just been tidying some of the usual stuff from the Compass article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Erik (btw wow, quick response to the giroux comment),
I've pretty much finished ce for grammar, style, and flow. The article was already so well-written and so thoroughly sourced that it was a pleasure (and relatively easy) to copyedit. Your input/cooperation was absolutely invaluable. If you make any significant additions to the article and would like me to help out, or if you have future articles that are languishing on the LOCE request page, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Again, thanks for the fun copyedit and happy editing! -- Malachirality ( talk) 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (films) is a guideline, not a policy. Considering the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I don't understand why there isn't an article for this future film. There are plenty of reliable sources and press coverage. Guidelines are there to help us, they are not to be followed mechanically or to stop us having useful articles. -- Oldak Quill 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Pixelface (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey Erik, and Merry X-mas! The reason that I reverted your post was because on IMDb it says, it started filming in November. I mistakenly said October in the edit summary, though. If I was mistaken, let me know!
Kevin ( talk) 01:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the late response. I must of read it wrong, my mistake. Sorry for any inconveniences!
Cheers, Kevin ( talk) 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that you reverted blanking by the creator of the (now deleted) Artemis Fowl (film) with the edit summary "revert disruptive blanking". When the creator and primary author of an article blanks the page, that is not disruptive unless deletion is controversial; rather, it is a recognized signal to delete under WP:CSD#G7. Regards, --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 16:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand but iam bit confused why you have created The Wheelman when you can simply click on move button and move to the correct link?. Another thing is why cant the article be The Wheelman (video game)?. The film and games can have two separate link. This is why i have reverted.-- SkyWalker ( talk) 19:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
So what is happening now?. I see you again redirected The Wheelman (film) to The Wheelman-- SkyWalker ( talk) 08:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. I did not know that portal exist. I would gladly join and do the needful. So even you are interested in movie?. Nice to have some company. Also i can start viewing the image. I forgot to tell it you. :). -- SkyWalker ( talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Erik,
I noticed you took down my link for the Hellboy 2 trailer saying it was spam. So, are you saying that I cannot put any external links for trailers? It is not meant as spam as I only would put links if there were none already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slewy ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hay Erik, thanks for the message. oops my bad, that was actually accedental. I was reverting an edit...and I guess that the medical terminology was in the version that I used. My goal was to remove a POV edit that talked about how "an obvious alpha male was trying to get his woman back after she was captured" (simplified explination). I will go back to the talk page and clear up amy misunderstandings of my intentions. Coffeepusher ( talk) 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears Editor2008 ( talk · contribs) is stalking me and reverting all my edits in a jealous rage. What do I do? Alientraveller ( talk) 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, how fun is it!? :D It's so much better than Sunshine - I got bored of that really quickly - but Galaxy is far more special and, well... "Mario". When I was on the bee planet, I actually felt like I was playing Mario 64 again, which is the biggest compliment I could give to a Mario game. Twilight Princess is great too, not as original as I would have liked, it felt a little like a remake of Ocarina of Time but that's not a bad thing. Hopefully we'll be seeing a more ambitious Zelda game on the Wii. The Wii controls really breathe new life into these classic games, the bow and arrow in Zelda is brilliant IMO. Paul 730 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
For the award, my friend! Much appreciated. -- J.D. ( talk) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you reverted my addition to The Mist (film), which pointed out that in the original story it was never revealed what created the mist, but in the film (according to the trailer) the source was revealed in a sequence which did not occur in the original story. Since it's a matter of pointing out that certain information exists in one source but does not exist in another, it seemed pretty cut and dried to me. It's easily verifiable -- anyone can look at the trailer or read the story. I can't cite a page number in the story because the sequence does not exist there, and it might be a bit awkward to cite mm:ss for the trailer. But WP:OR does not say that synthesis cannot be used; only that it cannot be used to promote a position. If it could never be used, then we would have to go through every article on television shows and remove any references linking to pop culture ( example) because no external source pointed it out regardless of how obvious the innuendo is, parody or otherwise. Given these considerations, I was wondering what, if anything, would be needed to back this addition up in accordance with standing policy? ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to keep an eye on this one if you aren't already - I only mention it because the press release was a front-page link on Yahoo, so there might be people eager to split it again, probably in ignorance of NF. Girolamo Savonarola 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's ok, it was just for fun. I think the linear tables used at James Bond film series is perfectly fine. I have two Bond books from the library, which I could use to improve the article. It's a GA that must have been promoted ages ago. Alientraveller 18:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think Kirsten Sheridan is too short to yield a DYK? Cheers, Melty girl 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh, the only thing I don't like is saying "it looks similar", as that comes off as more of an "I'm not positive" instead of "it was meant to be". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Erik, you suggested to me that I "italicize newspapers" per WP:MOS and I did that on the American Gangster (film) article, but then you removed the italics. In your edit summary you wrote "Unnecessary italics; if they were required, the Cite news template would be set up to automatically italicize publishers." WP:CITE says "Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online." At that guideline, I see that Scientific American is not italicized in the Harvard example, but is italicized in the footnotes example. I notice that the {{ cite news}} template automatically italicizes the work field, which is for "a column, sub part of issue, or a multi-part work such as a magazine title." The {{ cite web}} template also automatically italicizes the work field, which is for "a book, periodical or website, name of that work." I suppose I am confused as to when The Star-Ledger should be italicized. WP:ITALICS says italics should be used for "Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)." If I've read that guideline and the template documentation correctly, The Star-Ledger would appear as The Star-Ledger when in a paragraph, would be put in the publisher field in the {{ cite news}} template and would appear as The Star-Ledger, and would be put in the work field in the {{ cite web}} template and would appear as The Star-Ledger. Is that correct? I have used the {{ cite web}} template in the past and put newspaper/magazine titles in the publisher field since I consider the newspaper/magazine the publisher of the information, although I guess they belong in the work field. Should I not worry about italicizing newspapers and magazines in references? -- Pixelface 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry to go on about the issue of Valkyrie (film), but I do think that it is important for readers to know where the title comes from and a little more about its connection to the real-life events. There is especially the fact that Valkyrie was not the plan to kill Hitler himself, but the means of taking over the country once he was dead. The central irony was that Hitler had himself approved of Operation Valkyrie, presumably (according to historians, not me) out of concern that foreign workers living in Germany itself might rise up and overthrow the regime. In fact, it was actual German nationals who were now planning to use Valkyrie as part of their coup. Is there any way for me to present a more detailed version of the title's origins without being constantly overruled? Thank you. -- Marktreut 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You say that I have to "provide verifiable content via reliable sources about how and why the filmmakers implemented the title" and its connection to Operation Valkyrie. Well what else could be the link ? That some armour-wearing Norse woman warrior was somehow involved in the plot ? That's absurd. The statement in the Production section: "Valkyrie is titled after Operation Walküre ("Operation Valkyrie"), an operational codename in the film's plot" is rather vague. All I'm trying to do is give more details from the real-life historical point of view, that's all. And I do have verifiable sources as to Operation Valkyrie's origins and the connection to Hitler; which I have previously put in but which you and others have still taken out.-- Marktreut 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, It's rather difficult to compress a suitable explanation to within just one sentence. Here's the best I can do and I have included my sources. If this meets with your approval then I will put it in: "Valkyrie is titled after Operation Walküre (" Operation Valkyrie"), a means by the army could impose martial law and take over the government in the event of trouble within Germany itself. Ironically, Hitler had himself approved the plan, presumably in the event of a revolt by foreign workers. The plotters, actually German nationals, intended to kill Hitler, implement Operation Valkyrie and make peace with the Allies \<ref\>Secret Germany by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, ISBN-10: 0099490064, ISBN-13: 978-0099490067\</ref\>, although Churchill had made it clear that nothing would be acceptable short of unconditional surrender \<ref\>Is Paris Burning? by Larry collins and Dominique Lapierre\</ref\>." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktreut ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I glanced over the rest of the messages she had received, including the one from you about the lack of responses. I just figured it was worth a shot at preventing uploads that will replace ones that meet the criteria, and then they'll just end up getting deleted while the article loses an image. I'm starting to get a little annoyed with the constant messages from bots when a non-free image upload of mine gets orphaned due to vandalism or when an image has an "invalid FUR" due to an article's name be changed for disambiguation. But I'm fixing all of the occurrences, and I think I'm gaining a lot more messages since I've been reuploading many images that were too large and deleting the original, which means I get the messages. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. -- Nehrams2020 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a link in the Hulk talk; tomorrow night I expect to put it up, unless there's major objection. ThuranX 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, I was going to use the basic warning... then I thought again - the anonymous editor had put a link to a site where one could download an illegal copy of the movie, and that sort of thing really annoys me! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought, why not, I have the sources. It sounds good, hope it's not too scary or gory for me though. Will Smith is one of my favourite actors. It bodes well, as I enjoyed his last contribution with Akiva Goldsman, I, Robot. The I must be a good luck charm. Alientraveller 18:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, it appears IAL was just the start of cleaning up the winter films I've developed an interest in. Cleaned up Sweeney Todd, I'm now turning my attention to Beowulf. Are you planning to see either? I hope Todd isn't too gory, and that Beowulf will be a good way to introduce a younger family member to the poem. Alientraveller 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I like to show how things like in development, at least in comparison to their finish. Production photos always seem to exhibit more real world tone than screenshots. The one you picked was from the DVD. I don't think there are any "free" images of the Batsuit. The promo might be the better one, but I don't plan to put any new image up until I have a chance to sit down and get all the information from the DVD to add that to the section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been planning to merge Halo (film) with Halo (series) for a while now, going so far as to create something offline which could be used, but I've held off for now due to the length of the latter. There's a lot of information about the film, plenty of it even verifiable, and merging the film into the series might make the length of that article rather excessive. Do you think this is a case in which WP:SUMMARY would be invoked over the recommendations of WP:NF, and a separate article actually justified? Thanks, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 08:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, film articles are much easier to keep an eye on; the TV ones can be a little overwhelming, and I'm resolved to avoiding the articles for most of my favourite television shows, such as Buffy, Angel and Galactica, lest I end up spending even more time here than I do presently (plus, I've seen what some of the more rabid fans are like when you try to interfere with their article and I haven't the stomach for that fight right now). Babylon 5 is pretty much my one exception; fortunately, the creator has posted extensively online about the show since about 1991, talking extremely candidly about every aspect of the production. That leaves very little open to interpretation and thus makes maintaining the article easier than it might otherwise have been (which is why it was a surprise to see the state some of it was in only six months ago). Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 09:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Bring it on. Nothing disturbing about spurting blood, I've seen it all before in Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and 300, and if it's going to look as silly as it sounds, so be it. My only fear is that we see the actual pie-making process, which is the gruesome and gory part of it. Anyway, a trailer can do wonders for one's expectations. Why did I ever doubt Burton's eye for sweetly beautiful imagery? It's Victorian London for goodness sake, how much more Burton can you get?
Anyway, as for Beowulf, I'm curious, but as an animation fan I've always took to heart what Disney once said: that the key wasn't imitation, but reminding an audience of something. They may be barking up the wrong tree. Still, Zemeckis is brilliant and we're talking about one of the most influential tales in all fiction. So yeah, let me see those articles, some casting info would be nice. Alientraveller 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And where is the Premise section that you mention when you, yet again, take out all references to the origins of the working title of this film? I do not see what the problem is. How many other "Valkyries" were involved that make it doubtful that my interpretation is not the right one? When a film is made based on real events it is helpful for people to know what those events were and where Operation Valkyrie came in. I'm trying to put forward a useful historical point here. Is there any way we can compromise on this?-- Marktreut 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A pre- and a post-release section sounds like a good idea; I'm leaving work now, but I'll have a look at it this evening and see if I can think of any other ways it can be presented. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone felt the amount of information The Hobbit had on two films that may not come to pass was biased. So I moved it to LOTR film trilogy as a way of just showing the trilogy's popularity has prompted development of other Tolkien films. It's a no-win situation. Alientraveller 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the "I don't wanna be an admin" box on your userpage. I think it's a shame, as I'm fairly confident you'd breeze right through the process. Even if you stuck to improving film articles, I'm sure the sysop bit would come in handy sometimes. *shrug*
If you reconsider, give me a shout. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent; I check the Google News listing every day for it, but didn't think to check there. Rottentomatoes says it's "currently filming" but it's not strong enough to make me recreate the article as yet. Thanks again, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem; I actually considered afterwards that it was impolite of me to barge in and make the change; you were in the middle of creating the article and would have spotted it for sure. I've copy-pasted from other film articles too, resulting in my original version of the State of Play article saying the film was about "a monster attack on New York" in the premise section. :) Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised that the 2001 movie page had no thoughts about Clarke's thoughts by way of fiction ...Childhoods End ... and his non fiction on advanced extraterrestrial civilizations , sorry my little essay was so badly worded. The idea must have verifiable sources since I can remember talking with science fiction fans about the connection of 2001 to Childhood's end as far back as 1968! I don't think it is original with me.
Say I have some additions to the science section on the 2001 movie entry, but would like to know how to get them cleared so they actually get posted there! I have worked in manned space flight for 40 years and know a bit about the science in 2001. Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert.a.jackson ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look at the resources on the talk page when I get a chance. Thanks for acknowledging my work! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
I saw your developing a new article called User:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club. You may want to add this text/sources/interpretations to it:
Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk was a graduate of The Landmark Forum, or "The Forum", for short, and this later influenced his work. [1] [2] [3] In his review of the film adaptation of the book, Roger Ebert likened the character Tyler Durden to Werner Erhard. [4]. Ebert wrote that Tyler Durden was: "..a bully--Werner Erhard plus S & M, a leather club operator without the decor." [4] Fight Club film producer Ross Grayson Bell believes that his "creative synchronicity" with writer Palahniuk was due to their shared experience of attending The Forum. [3]
Let me know what you think. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mach 5 in film.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Doczilla 08:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (Image has been orphaned, replaced by image that is not under copyright elsewhere.) Doczilla 08:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
first at all: thank you! i'm a wikipedian in the wikipedia ... so.. but i'm only been in wikipedia for a short time. But, its not sooo new for me! if you want to see my german page (if you can read it ^^) than click [2] .. but i'm going to translate it completly in english..
and sorry about my english (thats the main-reason why i didn't put the book in... ).. i'm german, and my english isn't soo good, but i'm making an exchange year right now to improve it! (i'm in IN)
so.. still thank you! -- .læraðr 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thank you again ^^. i think the commands, and the complete "background-system" (i don't know how to call it...) is mostly the same.. the only difference that i've seen, is that the english wiki has much more articles and espetialy projects... (if you - for example - watch the englisch Saw VI talk page and compare it with the german one.. you don't see all these project on the german one...)
and its sometimes better, .. for example in music, i normaly watch both sides, if i want to have information about a band.. espetally the gerne, because in the german one its.. sometimes a little bit .. odd... i don't know.. ^^ so.. /spam off -- .læraðr 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious, you made this edit saying you were removing link spam yet you removed most of the content. Was that a error on your part? Kwsn (Ni!) 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I just stole the infobox from another movie, so I guess it didn't have all the necessary categories. Jauerback 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is already close to GA concerning the number of sources, so I'm going to finish the last few steps to bring it to GAN. Do you have any other sources that you saved in the past for the article? If not, I can continue to search online. I already found some sites for the visual effects for the production section, but figured if you already had something else to include, I should add it. -- Nehrams2020 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I need to know why you are choosing to delete the Phantasm V page? I have 2 sources and a few links that talk about the fifth installment. There's no reason to delete it. -The Correctonator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctonator ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I glanced over a minor article in this month's Empire, and it's got something about The Fountain and its atheistic themes, with an Aronofsky quote. I'm not sure how to include it, so I'll leave it to you, the steward of the article:
"I'm Godless... It's about this endless cycle of energy and matter, tracing back to the Big Bang. We're all just borrowing this matter and energy for a little bit, until it goes back into everything else, and that connects us all." [5]
By the way, I've been sorting out information on Dragon Ball. I hope it all doesn't look too cheesy, but I don't expect talking pigs on screen really. Good work on Surf Ninjas, I'd never heard of it. Alientraveller 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Although tommorow is really my birthday, since I haven't went to bed yet. But whatever! :P Paul 730 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message on the template's talk page to that effect. Either it should be reworded entirely to something other than a spoiler warning, or deleted. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 14:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a good copyeditor, but structurally and in terms of sourcing, it looks very good. Be sure to review image caption punctuation per WP:MOS#Images. I'm not sure why you're worried about size; it's currently at 33 kB readable prose, within the 30 to 50KB WP:SIZE guidelines, so if you need to add more, it should be OK. Sorry to take so long! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' ( talk) 09:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise, I am not sure I could have tendered something like this otherwise. Every time I cross paths with that kid, I've felt like I was devolving. I don't like the way I feel when I am editing with (read: against) him. I think there are only three people I've met in WP that can do that to me. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not sure whether I'm going to put this into the film's article or for a franchise article, because it's certainly notable that Michael France really sent the film on its father-son direction, but I'm not sure about Jonathan Hensleigh's giant bug movie. Also, would you prefer the quotebox to keep France's comments on Hulk as a comedy, or his thematic intent instead? Alientraveller ( talk) 16:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Erik, I really appreciate the feedback. And I also appreciate your commentary and suggestions which I find very helpful in knowing how to best improve the article. - Classicfilms ( talk) 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delist both articles? i don't see a discussion on WP:GAR. If this was discussed somewhere else (??) please show me. - Yamanbaiia ( talk) 20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I read the cited info on that Norton/Bixby thing, and they don't specifically say 'Bixby who played the Hulk', they're talking about how Norton and Bixby have similar empathic attitudes as actors or some such actory nonsense. Leaving that Bixby played Banner is more factual, and avoids the idea of referring to the Hulk as meaning both Banner and Hulk. ThuranX ( talk) 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying something that I'm not sure many understand. At
Spoiler you stated vis-a-vis the purpose of the Plot section: "Basically, it only exists to give shape to aspects like production, reception, etc. It does not exist to tell the readership what the film's about for the sake of seeing it, only for the sake of comprehending other information in the article." For a while now I've been of the opinion that Plot sections in many film articles (at least those for popular films) are far too detailed and contrary to
fiction guidelines as laid out in Novels style guidelines. I'd like to see many film Plot sections truly summarized — with details appropriate for support of the Response, Themes and Production sections — but I fear quite a few editors would find such a move unpopular. Thanks for your many valuable contributions to film articles.
Jim Dunning |
talk
22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that smaller films that have not yet reached development ought to be deleted, but articles with big-name actors have a better chance of being considered notable enough for inclusion. I would recommend that you take these articles to AfD to get community consensus. Glass Cobra 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm always getting myself into trouble for not being nice :P -- Closedmouth ( talk) 01:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the list of periodicals for further info on Unfaithful. You mentioned contacting you for any help tracking any of them down. I would be very interested... esp. that American Cinematographer and Creative Screenwriting articles. -- J.D. ( talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I still keep an eye on The Prestige article, but haven't been in a position to add anything to it, so I'd be interested in anything you come up with. I'm planning to work on the novel's article, so I'm re-reading it in preparation. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help with the film article. Thanks. (PS: I was amazed at the amount of recent activity on Preity Zinta!)
Jim Dunning |
talk
04:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be more than welcomed to find out as to how you were able to read those magazine articles. It would be pretty fun to read those and expand the article. I will start editing tomorrow to fit your requirements. Thanks for your cooperation, I guess. Wildroot 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And people will argue who should get more prominence: the source or the film's actual script. I'm fine with it as is. Alientraveller ( talk) 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of This Mist (I've just read the article and that's some good work you've done there), at some point in the future you should perhaps double-check the cast list you've compiled from The New York Times' online film guide; for example, their entry for Golden Compass still lists Nonso Anozie and Charlie Rowe as voicing Iorek Byrnison, when in fact Ian McKellen has taken over the role, so it would appear they're not infallible. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I brought Suryamukhi to AfD just before I had to undergo a week offline (the pain...), and it seems to have survived despite the clear notability guidelines on future films. Do you have any suggestions as to what to do next? The article makes it clear that the project is not necessarily on a clear path to immediate production - were it obviously about to start, I'd leave it be. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Could I trouble Alientraveller, Bignole and yourself to check out an image i just uploaded? the Santa Clause page was in some need of a modern Santa image, so I uploaded this. I think i covered my bases, copying the rationale from another Nast Santa image, but better safe than sorry. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It's like there's two Don Murphys, isn't there? The guy who sherperded Transformers to the big screen and decided fans wanted Peter Cullen and Frank Welker back, and then this internet troll. Frightening. Anyway, I believe Wikipedia to have a friendly atmosphere, and it's nice to assume as good faith as possible with people who share the same interests. Now if only people wouldn't whine about good work as with here.
Anyway, I have a query. I'm culling my backlog with Prince Caspian, and I was wondering how to include information on Dwarf costumes. Should I include them in the cast, considering we have three unique cases of black dwarf, red dwarf and half-dwarf? Alientraveller ( talk) 17:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that there are plenty of easily accessible sources out there, but since you're the film buff I was curious if you had already compiled any sources for Ticket to Heaven ? If not, that's cool, it probably won't take me long to dig up twenty or so and flesh out the article a bit, might involve a library trip or so. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage ( talk) 06:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
Is there a separate article for the Final Cut? I got the impression from discussion on the talk page that there had been one, but that it was deleted sometime in the past. If there isn't one, perhaps it could be created, which would allow us to shorten that section in the main article. My impression is that, at least of late, that particular section is the target of more edits than the rest of the article. Am I offbase here? I would like to know your opinion. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It was pretty good. I went to my g/f's parents. I actually didn't eat all that much, at least not as much as I've done before. The weekend isn't over yet, though, and I'm getting annoyed with this FSU/ UF game. How was your T-Day? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest leaving the citation in the plot of Million Dollar Baby for now as a compromise. It also doesn't harm the article for it to be there. Pixelface demanded a citation for the section earlier today and so I added one. Pixelface simply doesn't like the citation since it torpedoes his argument completely. But to be honest, I don't think any citation would have satisfied him. But this way, it demonstrates that he is being completely unreasonable. -- Farix ( Talk) 22:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You asked me why I think plot summaries are original research. I don't think all plot summaries are original research, just the ones that don't cite secondary sources. The policy on no original research says "Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts" and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and "all material must be verifiable" and "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." If editors watch a film and write a plot summary themselves, unless that plot summary has been previously published in print, I think it's original research. WP:OR says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." A film is certainly a source, but it's not a reliable third-party source independent of the subject. A film is a primary source, but when editors report on it, they become a secondary source and editors cannot cite themselves. WP:OR says "Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources." The guideline on reliable sources says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't a think a film qualifies. One could assume that the editors who wrote a plot summary watched a film, but a reader has no way of knowing that. If a plot summary has no citations, it's not really verifiable for a reader unless editors include audio or video clips of the film. WP:RS says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." If a plot summary first appears on Wikipedia, that's considered a self-published source. The WP:PSTS portion of WP:OR says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." although that portion of policy is currently under debate. WP:OR says "Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criteria for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth." It also says "Verifiability was also promoted as a way to ensure that notable views would be represented, under the assumption that the most notable views were easiest to document with sources." WP:OR says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia." If a plot summary has been previously published, it should be easy to find and cite the secondary sources that wrote it. The {{ OriginalResearch}} tag says "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." If a plot summary contains no citations, it's unverified. We could let every reader or every editor check facts themselves, and then I suppose no citations would ever be necessary. Readers could try to call Bill Gates up on the phone and verify Microsoft's net income for 2007, but that's unnecessary if a secondary source has already reported that information. I suppose a plot summary of a film can be verified by watching the film. But on Wikipedia, "verifiable" means "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." WP:V says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Unless an editor cites a screenplay, or a script with a page number, a reader has no way of finding the text that supports the article content. WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:V says "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." WP:V says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations." Blogs are not considered reliable sources, because anyone can make their own blog and write whatever they want. On Wikipedia, editors can also write whatever they want. We have to provide citations so readers know material is correct. A plot summary that cites a blog would not be acceptable, and a plot summary that cites nothing at all is also not acceptable. I know that the style guide for films says "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film" but I don't think that should be in the style guide. The film is a source, but it's not a print source, it's not a third-party source. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source", but it also says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research". An unpublished personal observation is original research. It also says "All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources." The guideline on writing about fiction says "It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation." If an editor re-tells a story without any analysis (which requires secondary sources) it may be construed as a derivative work. I have noticed Featured Articles with unsourced plot summaries, but I don't think unsourced plot summaries are supported by Wikipedia's three main policies. If someone writes a plot summary, they should be able to support their material with something besides "I watched the film myself." Plot summaries should not be an editor's own personal observations — that's original research. Speaking of the Million Dollar Baby article, that Plot section needs to cite secondary sources to show that material has been previously published. -- Pixelface ( talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent comment on my talk page. I guess we can respectfully disagree. I suppose I look more to the guideline on reliable sources for guidance, which says articles should have third-party sources. I agree that all editors write their own prose based on how they look at sources, but with a reference to previously published text, readers can see exactly what the editor was writing from. I don't think that is possible when citing a film, explicitly or implicitly. I do try to assume good faith about contributions, I just don't think blind faith is necessary. I think readers should not have to put their trust in anonymous editors that material is accurate. And I don't think readers should have to watch every film they read about on Wikipedia in order to verify the film article. Thank you again for mentioning my work on Critical reception sections. I really haven't included quotes in very many articles because it takes alot of time, and many people have said the sections are too long. It's something that can be removed so easily by anyone, so it can end up being just a big waste of my time. -- Pixelface ( talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. Be sure that I'll continue to draw on your help and experience on any other films articles I decide to try my hand at improving. As for State of Play, I deliberately chose to focus on that when I first joined in order to help me learn the ropes on Wikipedia, rather than from a special interest in the project itself; at the time it wasn't a film that was receiving a lot of attention, so it was a perfect choice for me to adopt. As time went on, I found myself more interested in the film itself and was 'very disappointed when I learned of Pitt's departure. Still, as I said the other day, if nothing else good has come of this, it'll serve as an excellent example the next time you're arguing for the enforcement of the notability guidelines for films. As an aside, it wasn't until yesterday that I realised it was Thanksgiving weekend; hope you had a good one. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 19:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up; I will adjust the Manhunter article accordingly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this edit. It seems that StarWars.com isn't really that reliable a source of info, specifically because the provenance of the info provided there seems questionable. What's your take on it? (Bignole and Alientraveller, please feel free to jump in). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Given the most recent developments, should this be merged with De Palma? I could understand maybe looking the other way on the NF violation when it seemed ready to start, but being as it's stalled (and this is exactly why we in theory shouldn't be "looking the other way"), maybe this article is obviously premature. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for those, I'll try to make use of them (though I spent an hour or so today wandering around the periodicals section of my university library trying to find old issues of Sight & Sound!). To be honest I'm not sure which way the article will go; there's not as much thematic analysis on it as there is for Nolan's other films, but there's plenty on his direction style so I can try to gather a section together on that. Additionally, there is a lot on story and style comparisons between it and the original version (which I haven't actually seen yet... ). Brad ( talk) 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I follow your logic on the naming for American Gangster, but I was curious what your thoughts were on this situation. Morningside Heights redirects to Morningside Heights, Manhattan with the disambiguation page at Morningside (disambiguation) and breadcrumb links to the Toronto neighborhood and the disambiguation page. Should this be changed similarly to American Gangster or is it possible that at some point in the future a similar system will be setup for the film? Just curious. Thanks for being patient and laying out your thoughts on the AG discussion. ~ Paul C/ T + 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm nearly finished with the two projects. I have a question. Of course there are unanimous links you left for Batman Forever. I cannot add these as I have no idea how. You are far too busy with more important film projects. I'm open anytime you feel like. Anyway what happens after I'm finished correcting the errors? Do you go through the article once more and see for yourself or what? I don't know damn.
Something I noticed here. This is very similar as to what you made for this. This is why I feel Batman Forever shouldn't be delisted anymore. I believe we need to take it off. See if you can fit this into your busy schedule. Wildroot ( talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Erik:
Links to paid subscription sites that require payment for articles don't make for suitable references, nor are they in the spirit or keeping of Wikipedia. WikiTracker ( talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm removing the section, as it doesn't need to be discussed more. When I'm finished with my DVDs, we should have discussions more often. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for the assist there, you Big Vandal, you. - Love, Sherlock (lol) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the New York Post considered a reliable source in America? I just checked some information I added previously for the Angels and Demons article, and learnt the newspaper was a tabloid. That'd be like citing The Sun for me (though granted, numerous Doctor Who rumours they posted were true). Who are the more reliable papers in America and who aren't? Alientraveller ( talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Good job on Body of Lies. Meanwhile, I've cited my newly received issue of Empire: at least we've now cleared the whole "Joker - permanent face or not" controversy. Alientraveller 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for removing the photos on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29. Unfortunately, another editor named Jossi keeps putting one of the photos back in. I really believe that either all of the photos stay, or they all go. The original hardcover photo suffices and the others are redundant. I would be grateful if you could eliminate them all again.
Incidentally, Jossi has admitted to having personal "opinions" on Golb on another page, and to "throwing oil on the fire"--is it entirely appropriate for him to be involved in editing this page? Critical Reader ( talk) 22:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. But I might wanna change the "away" message as I'm watching more than one DVD box set. TheBlazikenMaster 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Eric! I was pleased to see your message on my talk board. How are you? Hey, by the way, I didn't coin "verifibullies"...I did "ErikBigNolePedia". :) I'm glad that it has critical commentary. I think that page was missing something without SOME image of The Joker on it. It just felt naked without it. The editing is going great. My "The Hire" page got upgraded to a "B" status! :) I think it needs some pics to illustrate it a bit but I'm not good at making tables or providing rationale. Anyway...that's how it's goin'. I hope you're well, my friend! TabascoMan77 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The
November 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
02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I must say my first reaction to your message was a little bit of anger. I spent quite some time trying to fill in the extremely poor plot summary for Sunshine, and next thing I know I have someone saying they didn't really appreciate my contribution. This is the first time this has happened to me, but there has been other BS on wikipedia which has made me think twice about making contributions in the past.
However, this is more or less a "last straw" scenario.
I can read the section you quoted for me. It clearly states but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT MINIMAL. I don't know if you are some kind of overbearing martinet who likes to "control" things or you simply did not like my edit, but when I read the guidelines for Wikipedia's plot summary sections, I didn't see anything but the word "should be" which meant where possible - and that is not the case here IMO.
The plot summary for Sunshine was both lacking certain details and in some ways deceptive - it was certainly highly deficient. Sunshine is not a simple, straightforward film that can be summarized in the 600 words (and that is nothing more than a SUGGESTION) - the evidence was clear from the weaknesses of the summary that was there. There were numerous plot/filming points which are mentioned on other portions of the page that made no sense to anyone who had not actually seen the film due to missing information in the plot summary.
Obviously, I must have stepped on your toes on some pet project that you feel belongs to you. I noticed you have numerous edits in the history of the page. You have an idea in your head that there is some "rule" that must be followed, and I don't agree with you - that is not my interpretation of the section you quoted. Popping onto my user page to tell me I've done something wrong because you feel you have some kind of ownership of a page is outrageous - and you didn't even make any expression of THANKS for improving the section.
So - the answer is no. I won't go back and cut back on the summary. It is within the guidelines and breaks no rules. If you want to muddle it up by removing salient points to make it like it was, knock yourself out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CokeBear ( talk • contribs) 23:10, November 30, 2007
I really don't know, but it's coming along fantastically. Let me know when you want to go to FA. Obviously the lead needs a rewrite, but I think you've improved there. Alientraveller 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is looking very good. I just found the second paragraph a bit meh without any real focus or anything that would interest a reader. More specific things like shooting locations would be worthy of a lead. I think the themes and the critical reaction is certainly more important. Alientraveller 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know that I created my very first article. It's about Ethan Hunt's partner-in-crime from the Mission: Impossible movies, Luther Stickell. Take a look and let me know how you like it. :) TabascoMan77 00:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I found this apparent interview with a guy who worked on the MST3K film Zombie Nightmare. Does it look like a reliable enough source for the artice? -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Does it look GA quality, or should I not even bother trying to use it?" -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 02:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have userfied the article and included a copy of the article history on the talk page per the guidelines recommendations. Let me know if you need anything else, and I hope that helps you continue to improve the article for FA status. By the way, congrats on the new GA. -- Nehrams2020 03:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has made it his mission to include the trivia on the Hitman movie article. I'de appreciate you're help, as I can no longer revert. DurinsBane87 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't wanna comment on "I tagged the article a lot."? Surely you are a movie fan, and must have something to say about it. TheBlazikenMaster 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Speak of the devil with false information: King Kong Vs. Jaws. Alientraveller ( talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi
I know what you're trying to say, but the producer said that they will try to release it by that time. It hardly seems likely to be released next year (2008) because of the WGA strike. Also, who's to say the other films aren't also going to be delayed. We don't know this. Thanks, anyway. Please keep it there, or move it to 2010 or something. However, I understand if you remove it. Thanks anyway, -- EclipseSSD ( talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
Hi there!
This is regarding the Fight Club film article and the LOCE request. Looking at the length, the organization, and the list of references (!), I'd say this article has got a lot of potential (FAC?). I'd love to work with you to ce it, but I see a few users have already begun on it. So the questions are these:
Thanks!
-- Malachirality ( talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Good call on the Jaws/King Kong madness. Takes a man to do that. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on nothing more but my own gut feeling, I would think that a 10% divergence would be enough for a separate cream of the crop entry (I think Batman Begins must have levelled out since you last looked at its entry: 84% vs. 82%; creditable scores for any film, let alone a superhero one). I can sort of see the guy's point about explaining the ratings. I suppose if I'd never heard of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic before, I'd be a smidgeon confused until reading their respective entries, and so it probably doesn't hurt to keep the short descriptions. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 16:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I've haven't yet fallen foul of WP:3RR during my time here, so I perhaps haven't paid enough attention to counting my reverts. I'll make sure I keep an eye out. Thanks again, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Gah, only this morning I told an editor "to think of Wikipedia not as an outlet for any real-world anger or annoyance, but as an escape from it. Taking a few seconds to read an intended edit summary or talk page comment back to yourself can make all the difference to how you're perceived" and then I go and leave an irate message for TheGoonSquad in response to a snarky (but ultimately inconsequential) comment from him on my talk page.. Your advice to him was much more constructive, and I'll do well to follow suit in the future. Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You tell me on my page, that underworld 3 is not comeing out in 2010? Can you tell where it comeing out. Most sites on google said it comeing out on 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 ( talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for keeping me updated. :) — Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
On the most recent edits, I reverted Helpsloose because it wasn't mentioned in the article. Could you be involved in this? I really think you agree that it should be mentioned in the article, I didn't wanna start dumb edit war, and I'm way too tired to start a discussion on the movie talk page, so I came to you. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, i think it's not so much a post- World's Finest relationship, but a more intelligent exploration and continuation of it. All of the issues (from both Batman's and Superman's private reflections on the other) refer to their previous and long-term experiences with one another. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notice your comment on my talk page you sent 12 days ago. I did add the critical quotes to the Eastern Promises and The Brave One (2007 film) articles. I also expanded the reception sections on The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film), Superbad (film), Next (film), Enough, Mr. Bean's Holiday, Jackass: The Movie, No End in Sight, The Ex (2007 film), and The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. On The Ex (2007 film), I focused more on finding similar sentiments seen in multiple reviews and I wrote prose and cited the reviews. I really haven't added quotes lately. I've got people telling me that they're too long or that we can't quote so much. It just takes too long to put together and I'm not really seeing the benefit. Which 10 or so critics to cite out of 140? If we link to a review aggregator, readers can find reviews there. I do think that terms like "fresh", "rotten", and "metascore" should be avoided. Many readers don't know what they mean, and those terms might even be trademarked. I noticed there was some confusion over those terms at The Golden Compass article. The terms could be wikilinked and be redirects to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but I just find it easier to say "X% of critics gave the film positive reviews based on Y reviews" when speaking of Rotten Tomatoes and say "the film received an average score of X out of 100 based on Y reviews" when speaking of Metacritic. I liked the work you did on Surf Ninjas. I'm impressed. :) -- Pixelface ( talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Giving the relevant header, I've got a proposal for I Am Legend. Most of the reviews I'm looking at suggest the film's first hour or so is more introspective than the last half-hour. So why not pick a very select few of critics, and analyze it as such? So like their perspective on Smith's performance in one paragraph, and another on the ending. It would be a refreshing approach to the usual "everybody's two cents" to try to create a sense of consensus. Alientraveller ( talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm becoming confused. Both Variety and THR reported the film would began filming last month, but it's not listed in THR's production listings, either domestic or international. We have the Mexican newspaper discussing a January start, but this could mean location filming. Your two cents? Should I just trust the trades' announcement and unmerge? Alientraveller ( talk) 15:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, THR has confirmed Dragonball is shooting. Alientraveller ( talk) 10:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is? Thanks for telling me! Do you know who created it?-- Cojin ( talk) 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems like it's gonna be some type of whale type beast though. When looking through the Slusho site they say something about whales.-- Cojin ( talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What's the deal with those Viral sites anyway? How do they really promote a film? By giving it an aura of mystery?-- Cojin ( talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
...is now on the project sidebar and in the new announcements section. Just thought you'd want to know! :) Regards, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't really aware of Google Alerts, but I've set a few up now and I'm certain they'll be useful (though if there's even a scrap of information anywhere I don't already have about State of Play, I'll be very surprised). It's also good to see Future Films is up and running now; hopefully we can set a standard with that which other editors will follow, especially with regard to WP:NF. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 10:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha. It's beginning to look more and more like one of those projects which will be dogged by bad press, exaggerated rumour and speculation (nothing is confirmed, but I can't see how Helen Mirren can stay on board with her schedule as it is, and if she goes, the coverage will only get worse). Still, if nothing else, it should provide plenty of information for the article when the film finally gets around to shooting. Affleck is no Norton (few are none are), but this is the right kind of role for him to be taking at this stage in his career, and if he can pull it off it might finally see the completion of his rehabilitation in the eyes of the movie-going public after the "
Bennifer" years.
Liquidfinale (
Ţ) (
Ç) (
Ŵ)
19:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I want to get an advice about future movies. Can you name me all reliable sites? Because I really wanna know of good reliable sites that give good info about movies, and is edited by professionals. Do you know of such site? I would appreciate if you named me more than one, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that I'm gonna make the article, but YES, YES, YES! [3] Alientraveller ( talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the stub for Andrew Henry's Meadow had been deleted. Since that is the title of a classic children's book (not just a stalled film project), I recreated the article as a redirect to the author, Doris Burn. You may want to list it among the redirects on your blacklist page. -- Dystopos ( talk) 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Tintin trilogy has its own article on the main page of the French language wikipedia; http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil . So this is really different standards between French and English language : worthy of main page in one case, forbidden in the other case.... Hektor ( talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Just saw it at the IMAX this last week, and it was awsome! the Joker's bank heist is brlliant, funny and damaged in a way that I cannot really explain. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you mentioned the TFD at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films. Are you also going to mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television? I take it you'll be contacting the editor who created the template, all of the editors who worked on that template, the editors who argued in favor of it at this TFD, the admin who declared it had consensus, and the editors who rewrote the spoiler guideline around it? -- Pixelface ( talk) 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Gah man, you know I'm no good with these sorts of policy guidelines or what not. I mean, I already have difficulty with editors who think "it should be that way because this other article does it this way", but each article has its own shape depending on how much info is avaliable. In any case, don't you think this whole anti-spoiler movement might have gotten out of hand? Wikipedia isn't censored, yes, but it should be easy to use too. But I leave it to you. So, not distracted from that peer review yet are you? Haha, naughty me and MovieMadness. Alientraveller ( talk) 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Love, Sherlock. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are using an online counter, than it probably is not accurate. My real count is 28,100+, but Kate's Tool has it listed as lower. I can only assume this is because they don't keep track of your edits, but actually search Wikipedia's articles for your name in the edit history. Well, if a page is deleted then your history is theoretically gone, like when I deleted the sandbox that I was using to write Smallville (season 1), which had a few hundred edits. Your "My Preferences" has a more accurate edit counter. Maybe you'll be inside 400 with that number. :) Oh, if you had not noticed, I've been MIA for a few days. My computer is crappying-out on me (on g/f's laptop right now). I'm also going to my cousin's wedding today and won't be back till tomorrow. Anyway, the point was I'm giving an explaination for any tardy replies. Also, in case I don't get on here before then, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. That goes for everyone else that reads this as well; if you don't celebrate Christmas...well, suppliment any day you like. ;) BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Erik, you get around this burg more than I, so you probably know where to find this quickly. Are translations to English considered OR? I recall seeing something about a process for translating other-language-WP articles to en-WP, but can't find it now. There's an article which uses its French-WP analog as the starter dough (acknowledged by the primary contributor), so I'm unsure of its accuracy. Thoughts?
Jim Dunning |
talk
15:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you chip in here? I think this would be a good way to continually improve our understanding of what a cast list is. Alientraveller ( talk) 21:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, go start a new topic at WP:MOSFILMS. I definitely agree it's better to just link trailers for upcoming films, otherwise, only product placement or merchandise is notable. Alientraveller ( talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? An edit war? This is crazy. Someone else has been posting false information which I am attempting to correct and you revert the content back to the false information and send me a warning? I have factually proved everything I have stated in the Talk section already. If you would read the changes that I made and follow the Talk thread I think you would certainly reinstate my edit and send me an apology. JohnnieYoung ( talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
eric, since the hobbit movie has been confirmed, a separate article page must be made for it. -- Cman7792 ( talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I came across Hard Candy (film) when cleaning up linkspam (TrailerAddict.com) and noticed that an effort was being made with this film article. It looks good so far -- I was wondering if you were in need of resources to continue improving the article, as that's my fortitude. Let me know if you do, and I can put a list together for you. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I saw your message in response to the bot. Do you need some help? — Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Carry on London, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested by recreation of the article after the first PROD deletion. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{ prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Gran2 ( talk · contribs) has opened a peer review. Would you be so kind as to comment? The article is really strong and could easily pass FAC now. Alientraveller ( talk) 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be a voice of reason, so as a Wikipedia novice I'm turning to you for advice. Alientraveller keeps deleting reviews and truncating others I added to the article Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street without any reasonable justification (and then denies having done it despite the fact the history proves he has). It appears to me he simply will not be happy with the article unless it reads exactly the way he deems fit. On my talk page he accused me of having a problem with WP:OWN but I think it's he who's in the wrong here. On the Sweeney discussion page I asked him to direct me to policy re: how many reviews can be included and how long they can be and his answer was to use common sense, but apparently it's his common sense that rules. I'm new, I'm trying to learn the ropes, but I don't think he's treating my edits fairly. If I'm absolutely wrong I'll back off, but I honestly feel like he's bullying me. He keeps accusing me of making edits I never did, and he certainly isn't helping me by refusing to respond to my requests or answer my questions. Thank you very much for your help. MovieMadness ( talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Your civility and warm hearted patience amazes me to no end. Alientraveller ( talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
I hope you understand that my revert was not intended to be disruptive, as I presented the passage on the talk page for wider analysis. This is just a mild dispute about content, so there's no need to suggest vandalism on anyone's part. (Speaking from experience, that kind of implication is never favorable.) I'm positive that all editors involved want an updated and accurate article, so hopefully the my revision is a step closer to that. Feel free to weigh in, or even revert wholesale -- I'll give you that one. ;) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
BIGNOLE
(Contact me) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Paul
730 is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Alientraveller (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Arcayne
(cast a spell) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Arcayne/ECard}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Liquidfinale (
Ţ) (
Ç) (
Ŵ) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
As an FYI, our Eagle Eye buddy got indefinitely blocked, so hopefully, we won't have to worry about his vandalism anymore (at least until he creates a new account). Oh, and Merry Christmas. Jauerback ( talk) 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Erik, thank you for contacting me prior to editing the article. I feel that the cover should be included because it can be confused with Jay-Z's American Gangster. If you don't agree with me, feel free to revert my edit. Daniil Maslyuk ( talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Erik, I'm compiling full text of reviews and analyses
here for this film. You're welcome to it if you're looking for source material (I'm still organizing and adding to it, so bear with me). What did you think of I Am Legend?
Jim Dunning |
talk
16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Just saw Legend, and last act wasn't as bad as some have maintained. It was a given they'd never go down the route of the novel, with either the plot or the ending, not with a $150 million budget, and arming oneself with that knowledge should have enabled one to try to enjoy the film for what it was. And what it was, was perfectly adequate. Ultimately more a War of the Worlds than a Children of Men, it nevertheless features some reasonable jump-scares enlivened by some a couple of nice shots (the quick cuts to the SnorriCam as Smith legs it from the CGI beasties) and a well-constructed (if derivative) NY playground. In summary then: not shit. 6/10. Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 01:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Has it been captioned yet, so you can see it? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the comment could have been lifted straight from the talk page for Golden Compass, and the change appeared on my watchlist right above one for that, so it's not surprising the conflation occurred, as any religious allusions in I Am Legend are likely pretty vague, and I'd just been tidying some of the usual stuff from the Compass article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Erik (btw wow, quick response to the giroux comment),
I've pretty much finished ce for grammar, style, and flow. The article was already so well-written and so thoroughly sourced that it was a pleasure (and relatively easy) to copyedit. Your input/cooperation was absolutely invaluable. If you make any significant additions to the article and would like me to help out, or if you have future articles that are languishing on the LOCE request page, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Again, thanks for the fun copyedit and happy editing! -- Malachirality ( talk) 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (films) is a guideline, not a policy. Considering the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I don't understand why there isn't an article for this future film. There are plenty of reliable sources and press coverage. Guidelines are there to help us, they are not to be followed mechanically or to stop us having useful articles. -- Oldak Quill 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Pixelface (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey Erik, and Merry X-mas! The reason that I reverted your post was because on IMDb it says, it started filming in November. I mistakenly said October in the edit summary, though. If I was mistaken, let me know!
Kevin ( talk) 01:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the late response. I must of read it wrong, my mistake. Sorry for any inconveniences!
Cheers, Kevin ( talk) 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that you reverted blanking by the creator of the (now deleted) Artemis Fowl (film) with the edit summary "revert disruptive blanking". When the creator and primary author of an article blanks the page, that is not disruptive unless deletion is controversial; rather, it is a recognized signal to delete under WP:CSD#G7. Regards, --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 16:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand but iam bit confused why you have created The Wheelman when you can simply click on move button and move to the correct link?. Another thing is why cant the article be The Wheelman (video game)?. The film and games can have two separate link. This is why i have reverted.-- SkyWalker ( talk) 19:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
So what is happening now?. I see you again redirected The Wheelman (film) to The Wheelman-- SkyWalker ( talk) 08:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. I did not know that portal exist. I would gladly join and do the needful. So even you are interested in movie?. Nice to have some company. Also i can start viewing the image. I forgot to tell it you. :). -- SkyWalker ( talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Erik,
I noticed you took down my link for the Hellboy 2 trailer saying it was spam. So, are you saying that I cannot put any external links for trailers? It is not meant as spam as I only would put links if there were none already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slewy ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hay Erik, thanks for the message. oops my bad, that was actually accedental. I was reverting an edit...and I guess that the medical terminology was in the version that I used. My goal was to remove a POV edit that talked about how "an obvious alpha male was trying to get his woman back after she was captured" (simplified explination). I will go back to the talk page and clear up amy misunderstandings of my intentions. Coffeepusher ( talk) 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears Editor2008 ( talk · contribs) is stalking me and reverting all my edits in a jealous rage. What do I do? Alientraveller ( talk) 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, how fun is it!? :D It's so much better than Sunshine - I got bored of that really quickly - but Galaxy is far more special and, well... "Mario". When I was on the bee planet, I actually felt like I was playing Mario 64 again, which is the biggest compliment I could give to a Mario game. Twilight Princess is great too, not as original as I would have liked, it felt a little like a remake of Ocarina of Time but that's not a bad thing. Hopefully we'll be seeing a more ambitious Zelda game on the Wii. The Wii controls really breathe new life into these classic games, the bow and arrow in Zelda is brilliant IMO. Paul 730 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
For the award, my friend! Much appreciated. -- J.D. ( talk) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)