Could you review Fires on the Plain (film)? This is not a review for B class, I'd just like an opinion about it. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit. It would be appreciated if you could get to this quickly. Oh, and if you could give me an opinion on my new section in WP:film talk page "Saving Private Ryan - Sniper issue" that would be appreciated as well. I will ask other editors about this as well. Happy editing! Yojimbo501 ( talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Also thanks for your comment on SPR - sniper issue. I believe nobody would really notice if we replaced "sniper" with "marksmen". Regardless, I believe Swatjester's source supports that he is a sniper very little besides the use of the word. I also think that if we reach an end to this issue, we should at least take out that source. Maybe, we could do a poll? I don't know. Well, besides that, Fires on the Plain is going quite well. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see the talk page. If you recall my concerns previously, I think there is something going on here that needs attention, but maybe from an admin. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
Hello Girolamo! I would like to ask you something. I tried to find another source regarding Preity Zinta's early career and find out which film was the first she starred in after Kya Kehna, Soldier or Dil Se. We know that technically Kya Kehna was her very first film, and that Dil Se was her first release. As I said, in an interview I saw back in time she said that Soldier had happened before Dil Se. In this interview with BAFTA (which is a video by google, unfortunately), her very first answer describes that (in the second by the way she describes her first audition with Shekhar Kapur). We of course cannot use this video as a source (I guess so). Do you have any idea what we can do? Shahid • Talk2me 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey again. Several of your points have been addressed. Could you please have a look at the FAC? The article clearly has no chances to be promoted, but nevertheless. Shahid • Talk2me 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) Just download and unzip the Igor-0.2.0.zip file, and execute the .jar file. It gives a bit more detail in the README file. There have been some problems with running on Macs, so please let me know hoe it goes, good or bad? – Clockwork Soul 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye on Igor bug number 1968422... this may fix your problem when I resolve it. – Clockwork Soul 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article is at the WikiProject Films' peer review section here. Please provide inputs. Thanks a lot. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 12:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello! You made an error in your editing of the article on Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye. I've seen the film and the title is not Story of the Eye -- Georges Bataille's name is part of the title. Please check the film's web site at www.armcinema25.com to confirm this. Thanks! 205.247.175.180 ( talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Savonarola. I was wondering if you agreed with me that moving the spanish names in Category:Argentine films to the english were posssible would be the best course of action. If you agree could you help me move some of the them to the english names but as each one is done the names in the images will have to be changed accordingly so I don't get bot drills again. Let me know what you would propose because at present as they are in spanish it almost feels like they are alienated from the rest. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've begun moving the spanish article titles to english. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats what I always thought but I always thought you insisted that all foreign titles should be moved. Ah Ok I agree anyway, I have only moved the ones which have been released under the english title internationally. Some of them wouldn't translate that easily anyway. Thanks, if the Fritzbot gets the greenlight for the geo articles I'll be reutrning once again to do more film work over the coming months. Particularly France, Italy, Spain/Mexico and Hong Kong. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm noticing that editors are using this much too frequently in film articles, e.g. Reign of Terror. I mean, what is there that needs to be referenced that the IMDb and TCM links don't cover? Is there something we can do to discourage this or someplace to bring this up for discussion?
Also, on an unrelated note, what is the guideline on IMDb and AMG links? I seem to recall reading that they shouldn't be listed in the External links section if they are already in the infobox, but User:23skidoo claims he or she has read the opposite. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not arbitrating a conflict here - I am merely elucidating policies and guidelines. I have no desire at the moment to get involved in whatever is going on. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I came to Casablanca for the waters, but the award is a nice bonus. Thanks. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :) The Wookieepedian ( talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Just out of curiosity, why isn't Triumph of the Will on the Core list? (I originally started editing Wikipedia because I was amazed that there were no in-depth articles on it!) Palm_Dogg ( talk) 07:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! I will address your comments of course. Thank you for the help. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The advanced program = grad school. So "she graduated college with an English honors degree, and then started a graduate program in criminal psychology" would be a good way to go, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best to treat the project in development as a piece of history rather than an actual film article, hence my suggestion to exclude the film infobox. While we have WP:NFF, we also have WP:SS. The topic has grown in its own right, and whether or not a film actually comes forward, this is a distinct movement that cannot be scooted under a section of another article. A possible compromise is some kind of Tolkien films article that would be a broader location, mentioning briefly and linking to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. WP:NFF is ultimately a guideline, the template indicating, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." For example, if Watchmen (film) for some reason did not enter active production, it would have relevance as a stand-alone historical topic. Any tweaks you have in mind? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the review. We shall work on it, and update you. -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor, Thelegendofvix keeps adding a "Name of show" section in, though many editors, myself included, belive it is unnecesary. Since there are (not that I can tell, anyways) coordinators for Wikiproject TV, and though you are a Wikiproject film editor, could you help in determining weather or not it is due weight? I'm going to ask other editors to. I'm sorry I ask so many questions, hopefully, one day I will no longer be dependant on editors like you. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 00:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I developed a first draft of the Start to B-class template, found here. Let me know how it needs to be changed/expanded so that I can develop the template and you can integrate it into the banner. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The
May 2008 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 (
talk)
19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Have responded to your second series of suggestions in the peer review. Although I know nothing about auteur theory (indeed, learned the word first while going through sources for the artilce Satyajit Ray!!), the word was used from sources cited. We in wikipedia, are not to debate on the theory, just to report that he has been called a auteur by appropriate authority (in this case, books on cinema), this was the basis for using the word. Please again have a look at the article. It is definitely improving a lot thanks to your assessment with clinical precision. Hope the article will be ready soon. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 09:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar! Its nice to know my work on Wikipedia is appreciated by some people. My editing has slowed down tremendously recently but I hope to jump back in soon. When I do, my first objective will be to try to bring Aguirre, the Wrath of God to Featured Status.- Hal Raglan ( talk) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I liked your wiki-atlas idea anyway. :-) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 15:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well actually I proposed a proper Atlas and a Wiki Translation project 8 months ago but like the bot was met with some opposition ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC).
Hello,
I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?
The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.
Sincerely
JnW talk 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
just remind you to do this test as early as possible. It won't take you too much time. Thanks a lot!! :)
JnW talk 09:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:
thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)
JnW talk 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
just remind you to complete the questionnaire.
My thesis's oral defense is on next Wednesday. So please complete it as early as you can. I believe it would just take you 5 miniutes. Thanks a lot. :)
JnW talk 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll hold off on finishing the job, but I still believe it ought to be done. I respectfully disagree with the assessment that most of this is "cruft" ... I found while researching the original article that just about everyone involved in the film has an awful lot to say that explains why many creative decisions were made in the making of the movie (as opposed to "I liked working with X because ..."). I'm open to moving some of the quotes into footnotes as I have been, but I really feel a lot of what's in there is adequately encyclopedic. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss this on WT:FILM, let's do it. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There was never any comment either way on that thread. In the absence of consensus I have reverted your conversion of the article into a redirect. Look, if there were consensus against doing this I would defer. But one user, even if they are project coordinator, does not get to decide this. I do think more input than yours or mine is needed, but we don't seem to be getting it. There was a consensus for it the first time I did it.
If you really feel this article is unnecessary and that the existing production section is too long and crufty then please, make the edits you feel need to made to it yourself and I will be happy to work with you and discuss them. Either that, or leave the forked article alone until we get consensus on whether to have them or not. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss this with me and do not use edit summaries.
Lack of attention to it does not constitute a reason for deletion or redirectification. I have been awaiting some clearer consensus or input from you other than "please don't do this ... I am the project coordinator and I get to make all the rules."
Daniel Case (
talk)
05:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, what the hell ... I will just go and edit the section in the main article to shreds, and request the deletion of the production history article. This will come up again with another movie; don't say I didn't warn you. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that for the most part, film articles do not need sub-articles, but it may not be uncalled for. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy has a few sub-articles, but then again, it's a trilogy. I think that if steps were taken to ensure that production information was as compressed as possible and if the article size is rather large, it would not be a bad idea to pursue wider consensus. I think for topics like Reception, it would be ideal to keep it limited to a section (no idea if anyone felt like implementing every review ever written for a particular film). Another sub-article possibility is critical analysis... I cite my personal example ( User:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club) to be a likely contender for its own article with so many sources to use. (Though I've procrastinated in writing the article...) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you check out some of those Evil Dead film articles and tell me what work needs to be done on them to make them better respected? If you can't I understand, Thank You. -- Tj999 ( talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking of placing Evil Dead II into the review process. Does that seem reasonable? -- Tj999 ( talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, a couple weeks back you left a comment in reply to me on the discussion page for the upcoming Kevin Costner film Swing Vote. I had requested assistance in making factual additions to the page, and you replied to say there shouldn't be any COI problems "so long as you are performing neutral, uncontroversial edits" and " involve facts which are unlikely to be contested and are reliably sourced."
I appreciated the suggestion greatly, although I hadn't acted on it until just now. Long story short, when I created this account I sought advice from the Village Pump, and got the thumbs-up simply to make suggestions. I did not even ask for permission to make edits, because "exercise great caution" is not clearly defined, and I've seen what happens to people who end up on the wrong side of COI disputes.
Anyway, using your suggestion I've finally gotten around to starting a discussion about thison the Village Pump and would appreciate it if you might add your thoughts there. Thanks. NMS Bill ( talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Giro. The bot as been approved and the new geo project is undergoing setup, but if notability of settlements cannot be asserted and we can't find enough data for a seperate article we are indeed considering creating data tables in district or commune pages to save creating a truckload of permastubs. E.g like Ou Ya Dav District but with a column also for the geo globe. This way we will have a comprehensive coverage of most places but only those where there is enough info will have seperate articles created by the bot. Redirrects can be created until indeed there is enough info for articles on the lesser settlements. We will try to create as many decent starter articles as possible on towns if we have several sentences of data and take it from there. I believe this is the best solution and would recgnize most of the places in the world in either form. Eventually of course we hope for full articles on all places but initially this would indeed seem a good idea, just thought you might be interested seems as you mentioned this before. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have moved the A-class review to a much beter page at Wikipedia:A-class film nominations. Please tell me what you think at my talk page. Thank you. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've read what you wrote, and I understand a lot of it. But, why is it A-class review if it's to get up another class? Also, I mentioned above your comment at WT:FILMC that it's ONLY for WP:FILM articles. Anyway, if you want me to change it so that it reflects a review page, I'll do that. Tell me, If I did change it to your satisfaction, would you support the page? Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Giro. I will be traveling for next 1-2 weeks, so most probably won't be able to attend the article. However, I shall notify you as soon as the review comments are attended to. See you soon, regards, -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 07:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It also makes claims that are spammy if not sourced. I'll put the deleted text, with tags and cats killed here soon jimfbleak ( talk) 05:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I swapped the colors for nominees and rejected films per your comments at the aforementioned FLC. Also, as a member of the Italian cinema task force, could you look at my comments here? That reference is basically the only thing between that article and a FLC run, and any aid would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
Would you mind lending your opinion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Disambiguation of Nothing But Trouble films? I'm asking you because your opinion on film related matters is more respected than that of anyone else in the community and I'd like to have some sort of consensus on this kind of an issue for future reference.
Thanks! SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Giro don't try to make me look like the bad guy. Everybody has a right to object or have concerns. You clearly didn't read Shahid's talk page as the response on the project page looks out of context. The editor has badgered at Shahid all day long and turned it into a misconduct or drama. He has a right to object, I suggested a discussion, but noted that any discussion is likely to be strictly limited at present due to the fact that many of the most active editors on Bollywood are not present. I appreciate your role as a lead coordinator and ensuring task forces run smoothly, but the problem with the Indian cinema template was exactly that cuased by the American tmeplate which as you know a detailed consensus was given to only use that in core articles, the same is being done here. I apologise if I seemed patronising but the editor in quesiton isn't aware of the history on here and how and the purpose of why they were constructed in the first place. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 00:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I try to be a good role model for less expeienced editors, but its the way in which the editor at hand addressed it as a tell tale. We've worked for months on the Indian cinema project, created the lists and most of the ways of navigation in that topic including templates. Shahid tried to explain the history of it earlier. We also explained that a lengthy discussion between Bollywood editors on here wouldn't have much effect as normal on here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 00:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have contacted User:Garion96 who was involved with the American template. P.S. how will it affetc all the task forces? Nobody is removing any templates on any other cinemas. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 01:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't actually the one who proposed it or removed anything but it seems a logical step to make. Shahid equally has every right to edit in a way he deems appropriate. it really should have been sorted when the American one was. I believe the usage of the templates across other cinemas which don't have complex sub structures was approved back then and I personally would object to removing them from the other cinema articles. Remember we still have the individual sub cinema templates too which along with the director templates and the cinema of india templates was too much. Basically each of the Bollywood articles had two cinema templates which many would think too much, But it is an issue I've thought about from time to time and it does often seem too generic to have an article on Bollywood film connected to a Marathi film director or choreographers. Indian cinema is different in that is has many sub industries. Trust me I'd rather we had our veteran Indian cinema members back on wikipedia and the task force regain its activity and discussion as once occurred. I'd just rather situations weren't blown up thats all particularly with recent clearly redundant dab pages like Queen of Bollywood restored which again turned into a debate. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 01:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I've clearly shown I'm not hostile to the editor himself and actually warmly welcome him to participate and encourage activity in the task force as much as anybody. It can just get a little frustrating having to explain things to people again and again, and explain every course of editing people make, and to try to make a diverse bunch of people on here who often have conflicting views and interests and everybody happy. Thanks for notifying me if you think I stepped out of line but it wasn't intentionally unfriendly. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 02:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I am just wondering if there was a June newsletter released. Maybe I missed it or deleted it somehow, but I don't recall that. Thank you, -- Tj999 ( talk) 05:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your recent change to the page for the proposed Evangelion live action film and wanted to know why you did change it. I understand changes to the pages content, but there is now no way to access the page that was there now! Again, could you explain the reason for this? Thank you Ode2joy ( talk) 03:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a message on the coordinator page about the Start to B-class template a few days back, not sure if you missed it or not. Are we planning on adopting the C-class or remaining as is. Also for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality statistics, is the importance parameter going to be removed from this with only the Core list in it? Or do we have to approach the bot that updates this to add the Core list? -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The June 2008 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. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
When you have a moment can you take a look at this article? I am concerned with the changes made recently by Captain Crawdad, specifically the changes to the "cast" section, in which he added information that seem inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and is more appropriate to a fan site. He claims, on the talk page, that his changes are in line with WikiProject Films guidelines, but I have my doubts. I would like very much to hear your opinion. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't just sour grapes on my part for having some of my articles assessed as Stubs, but I can't help but feel that this is unduly harsh for the likes of Life is Cool and BABO as opposed to "proper" stubs such as (to give a comparable example) Lee Dae-ro Can't Die. How exactly do these articles fall short of Start-Class requirements?
On a related note, will the Film project be adopting the new C-Class, and how will the {{ Film Grading scheme}} be affected by the revised {{ Grading scheme}}? (I also see that the film grading scheme does not include FL-Class.) PC78 ( talk) 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
...about tagging Verree Teasdale and Ned Glass with the Film Project banner -- I didn't realize bios were outside the scope. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment at this CfD; I'm not sure what makes it "complicated" (perhaps my cack-handed attempt to explain it during the early hours of the morning!), but while I don't have a problem with simply dumping them all into a single category, I do think that such a category would still need to be renamed.
On a semi related note, I have also listed a number of film list templates at TfD. Those I've listed are amongst the most unnecessary, but in general there do appear to be far more cinema templates than what we actually need. I hope you don't mind my efforts to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you've heard of the new class (C-class) that has been added to assesment, which is why I come to you to ask if Fires on the Plain meets C-class. I know I've been bugging many editors on this issue of its class. It is currently a Start article. I'm pretty sure it has yet to meet the criteria for B-class. I'm aiming for GA-class (not yet of course) but am fully aware that I don't have many resources to make it so. I also disagree that (according to the assesment) "it still does not provide a moderate view" (this is qouted from memory). I'm not bragging about the article, but I think it provides a good amount of info. But anyways, does it begin to meet criteria for C-class? Yojimbo501 ( talk) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and just so you know I actually submitted it for a Peer Review recently. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay so I've added an opinion on weather or not we should support C-class. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I seemed to have err'd again. Is "WikiProjectBannerFilm" an old version of the "Film" template? I'll go through and check the stuff I did recently and make the change.
Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (
talk /
cont)
02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you review Fires on the Plain (film)? This is not a review for B class, I'd just like an opinion about it. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit. It would be appreciated if you could get to this quickly. Oh, and if you could give me an opinion on my new section in WP:film talk page "Saving Private Ryan - Sniper issue" that would be appreciated as well. I will ask other editors about this as well. Happy editing! Yojimbo501 ( talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Also thanks for your comment on SPR - sniper issue. I believe nobody would really notice if we replaced "sniper" with "marksmen". Regardless, I believe Swatjester's source supports that he is a sniper very little besides the use of the word. I also think that if we reach an end to this issue, we should at least take out that source. Maybe, we could do a poll? I don't know. Well, besides that, Fires on the Plain is going quite well. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see the talk page. If you recall my concerns previously, I think there is something going on here that needs attention, but maybe from an admin. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
Hello Girolamo! I would like to ask you something. I tried to find another source regarding Preity Zinta's early career and find out which film was the first she starred in after Kya Kehna, Soldier or Dil Se. We know that technically Kya Kehna was her very first film, and that Dil Se was her first release. As I said, in an interview I saw back in time she said that Soldier had happened before Dil Se. In this interview with BAFTA (which is a video by google, unfortunately), her very first answer describes that (in the second by the way she describes her first audition with Shekhar Kapur). We of course cannot use this video as a source (I guess so). Do you have any idea what we can do? Shahid • Talk2me 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey again. Several of your points have been addressed. Could you please have a look at the FAC? The article clearly has no chances to be promoted, but nevertheless. Shahid • Talk2me 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) Just download and unzip the Igor-0.2.0.zip file, and execute the .jar file. It gives a bit more detail in the README file. There have been some problems with running on Macs, so please let me know hoe it goes, good or bad? – Clockwork Soul 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye on Igor bug number 1968422... this may fix your problem when I resolve it. – Clockwork Soul 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article is at the WikiProject Films' peer review section here. Please provide inputs. Thanks a lot. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 12:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello! You made an error in your editing of the article on Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye. I've seen the film and the title is not Story of the Eye -- Georges Bataille's name is part of the title. Please check the film's web site at www.armcinema25.com to confirm this. Thanks! 205.247.175.180 ( talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Savonarola. I was wondering if you agreed with me that moving the spanish names in Category:Argentine films to the english were posssible would be the best course of action. If you agree could you help me move some of the them to the english names but as each one is done the names in the images will have to be changed accordingly so I don't get bot drills again. Let me know what you would propose because at present as they are in spanish it almost feels like they are alienated from the rest. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've begun moving the spanish article titles to english. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats what I always thought but I always thought you insisted that all foreign titles should be moved. Ah Ok I agree anyway, I have only moved the ones which have been released under the english title internationally. Some of them wouldn't translate that easily anyway. Thanks, if the Fritzbot gets the greenlight for the geo articles I'll be reutrning once again to do more film work over the coming months. Particularly France, Italy, Spain/Mexico and Hong Kong. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm noticing that editors are using this much too frequently in film articles, e.g. Reign of Terror. I mean, what is there that needs to be referenced that the IMDb and TCM links don't cover? Is there something we can do to discourage this or someplace to bring this up for discussion?
Also, on an unrelated note, what is the guideline on IMDb and AMG links? I seem to recall reading that they shouldn't be listed in the External links section if they are already in the infobox, but User:23skidoo claims he or she has read the opposite. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not arbitrating a conflict here - I am merely elucidating policies and guidelines. I have no desire at the moment to get involved in whatever is going on. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I came to Casablanca for the waters, but the award is a nice bonus. Thanks. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :) The Wookieepedian ( talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Just out of curiosity, why isn't Triumph of the Will on the Core list? (I originally started editing Wikipedia because I was amazed that there were no in-depth articles on it!) Palm_Dogg ( talk) 07:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! I will address your comments of course. Thank you for the help. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The advanced program = grad school. So "she graduated college with an English honors degree, and then started a graduate program in criminal psychology" would be a good way to go, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best to treat the project in development as a piece of history rather than an actual film article, hence my suggestion to exclude the film infobox. While we have WP:NFF, we also have WP:SS. The topic has grown in its own right, and whether or not a film actually comes forward, this is a distinct movement that cannot be scooted under a section of another article. A possible compromise is some kind of Tolkien films article that would be a broader location, mentioning briefly and linking to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. WP:NFF is ultimately a guideline, the template indicating, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." For example, if Watchmen (film) for some reason did not enter active production, it would have relevance as a stand-alone historical topic. Any tweaks you have in mind? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the review. We shall work on it, and update you. -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor, Thelegendofvix keeps adding a "Name of show" section in, though many editors, myself included, belive it is unnecesary. Since there are (not that I can tell, anyways) coordinators for Wikiproject TV, and though you are a Wikiproject film editor, could you help in determining weather or not it is due weight? I'm going to ask other editors to. I'm sorry I ask so many questions, hopefully, one day I will no longer be dependant on editors like you. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 00:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I developed a first draft of the Start to B-class template, found here. Let me know how it needs to be changed/expanded so that I can develop the template and you can integrate it into the banner. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The
May 2008 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 (
talk)
19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Have responded to your second series of suggestions in the peer review. Although I know nothing about auteur theory (indeed, learned the word first while going through sources for the artilce Satyajit Ray!!), the word was used from sources cited. We in wikipedia, are not to debate on the theory, just to report that he has been called a auteur by appropriate authority (in this case, books on cinema), this was the basis for using the word. Please again have a look at the article. It is definitely improving a lot thanks to your assessment with clinical precision. Hope the article will be ready soon. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 09:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar! Its nice to know my work on Wikipedia is appreciated by some people. My editing has slowed down tremendously recently but I hope to jump back in soon. When I do, my first objective will be to try to bring Aguirre, the Wrath of God to Featured Status.- Hal Raglan ( talk) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I liked your wiki-atlas idea anyway. :-) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 15:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well actually I proposed a proper Atlas and a Wiki Translation project 8 months ago but like the bot was met with some opposition ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC).
Hello,
I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?
The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.
Sincerely
JnW talk 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
just remind you to do this test as early as possible. It won't take you too much time. Thanks a lot!! :)
JnW talk 09:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:
thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)
JnW talk 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
just remind you to complete the questionnaire.
My thesis's oral defense is on next Wednesday. So please complete it as early as you can. I believe it would just take you 5 miniutes. Thanks a lot. :)
JnW talk 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll hold off on finishing the job, but I still believe it ought to be done. I respectfully disagree with the assessment that most of this is "cruft" ... I found while researching the original article that just about everyone involved in the film has an awful lot to say that explains why many creative decisions were made in the making of the movie (as opposed to "I liked working with X because ..."). I'm open to moving some of the quotes into footnotes as I have been, but I really feel a lot of what's in there is adequately encyclopedic. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss this on WT:FILM, let's do it. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There was never any comment either way on that thread. In the absence of consensus I have reverted your conversion of the article into a redirect. Look, if there were consensus against doing this I would defer. But one user, even if they are project coordinator, does not get to decide this. I do think more input than yours or mine is needed, but we don't seem to be getting it. There was a consensus for it the first time I did it.
If you really feel this article is unnecessary and that the existing production section is too long and crufty then please, make the edits you feel need to made to it yourself and I will be happy to work with you and discuss them. Either that, or leave the forked article alone until we get consensus on whether to have them or not. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss this with me and do not use edit summaries.
Lack of attention to it does not constitute a reason for deletion or redirectification. I have been awaiting some clearer consensus or input from you other than "please don't do this ... I am the project coordinator and I get to make all the rules."
Daniel Case (
talk)
05:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, what the hell ... I will just go and edit the section in the main article to shreds, and request the deletion of the production history article. This will come up again with another movie; don't say I didn't warn you. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that for the most part, film articles do not need sub-articles, but it may not be uncalled for. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy has a few sub-articles, but then again, it's a trilogy. I think that if steps were taken to ensure that production information was as compressed as possible and if the article size is rather large, it would not be a bad idea to pursue wider consensus. I think for topics like Reception, it would be ideal to keep it limited to a section (no idea if anyone felt like implementing every review ever written for a particular film). Another sub-article possibility is critical analysis... I cite my personal example ( User:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club) to be a likely contender for its own article with so many sources to use. (Though I've procrastinated in writing the article...) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you check out some of those Evil Dead film articles and tell me what work needs to be done on them to make them better respected? If you can't I understand, Thank You. -- Tj999 ( talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking of placing Evil Dead II into the review process. Does that seem reasonable? -- Tj999 ( talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, a couple weeks back you left a comment in reply to me on the discussion page for the upcoming Kevin Costner film Swing Vote. I had requested assistance in making factual additions to the page, and you replied to say there shouldn't be any COI problems "so long as you are performing neutral, uncontroversial edits" and " involve facts which are unlikely to be contested and are reliably sourced."
I appreciated the suggestion greatly, although I hadn't acted on it until just now. Long story short, when I created this account I sought advice from the Village Pump, and got the thumbs-up simply to make suggestions. I did not even ask for permission to make edits, because "exercise great caution" is not clearly defined, and I've seen what happens to people who end up on the wrong side of COI disputes.
Anyway, using your suggestion I've finally gotten around to starting a discussion about thison the Village Pump and would appreciate it if you might add your thoughts there. Thanks. NMS Bill ( talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Giro. The bot as been approved and the new geo project is undergoing setup, but if notability of settlements cannot be asserted and we can't find enough data for a seperate article we are indeed considering creating data tables in district or commune pages to save creating a truckload of permastubs. E.g like Ou Ya Dav District but with a column also for the geo globe. This way we will have a comprehensive coverage of most places but only those where there is enough info will have seperate articles created by the bot. Redirrects can be created until indeed there is enough info for articles on the lesser settlements. We will try to create as many decent starter articles as possible on towns if we have several sentences of data and take it from there. I believe this is the best solution and would recgnize most of the places in the world in either form. Eventually of course we hope for full articles on all places but initially this would indeed seem a good idea, just thought you might be interested seems as you mentioned this before. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have moved the A-class review to a much beter page at Wikipedia:A-class film nominations. Please tell me what you think at my talk page. Thank you. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've read what you wrote, and I understand a lot of it. But, why is it A-class review if it's to get up another class? Also, I mentioned above your comment at WT:FILMC that it's ONLY for WP:FILM articles. Anyway, if you want me to change it so that it reflects a review page, I'll do that. Tell me, If I did change it to your satisfaction, would you support the page? Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Giro. I will be traveling for next 1-2 weeks, so most probably won't be able to attend the article. However, I shall notify you as soon as the review comments are attended to. See you soon, regards, -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 07:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It also makes claims that are spammy if not sourced. I'll put the deleted text, with tags and cats killed here soon jimfbleak ( talk) 05:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I swapped the colors for nominees and rejected films per your comments at the aforementioned FLC. Also, as a member of the Italian cinema task force, could you look at my comments here? That reference is basically the only thing between that article and a FLC run, and any aid would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
Would you mind lending your opinion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Disambiguation of Nothing But Trouble films? I'm asking you because your opinion on film related matters is more respected than that of anyone else in the community and I'd like to have some sort of consensus on this kind of an issue for future reference.
Thanks! SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Giro don't try to make me look like the bad guy. Everybody has a right to object or have concerns. You clearly didn't read Shahid's talk page as the response on the project page looks out of context. The editor has badgered at Shahid all day long and turned it into a misconduct or drama. He has a right to object, I suggested a discussion, but noted that any discussion is likely to be strictly limited at present due to the fact that many of the most active editors on Bollywood are not present. I appreciate your role as a lead coordinator and ensuring task forces run smoothly, but the problem with the Indian cinema template was exactly that cuased by the American tmeplate which as you know a detailed consensus was given to only use that in core articles, the same is being done here. I apologise if I seemed patronising but the editor in quesiton isn't aware of the history on here and how and the purpose of why they were constructed in the first place. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 00:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I try to be a good role model for less expeienced editors, but its the way in which the editor at hand addressed it as a tell tale. We've worked for months on the Indian cinema project, created the lists and most of the ways of navigation in that topic including templates. Shahid tried to explain the history of it earlier. We also explained that a lengthy discussion between Bollywood editors on here wouldn't have much effect as normal on here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 00:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have contacted User:Garion96 who was involved with the American template. P.S. how will it affetc all the task forces? Nobody is removing any templates on any other cinemas. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 01:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't actually the one who proposed it or removed anything but it seems a logical step to make. Shahid equally has every right to edit in a way he deems appropriate. it really should have been sorted when the American one was. I believe the usage of the templates across other cinemas which don't have complex sub structures was approved back then and I personally would object to removing them from the other cinema articles. Remember we still have the individual sub cinema templates too which along with the director templates and the cinema of india templates was too much. Basically each of the Bollywood articles had two cinema templates which many would think too much, But it is an issue I've thought about from time to time and it does often seem too generic to have an article on Bollywood film connected to a Marathi film director or choreographers. Indian cinema is different in that is has many sub industries. Trust me I'd rather we had our veteran Indian cinema members back on wikipedia and the task force regain its activity and discussion as once occurred. I'd just rather situations weren't blown up thats all particularly with recent clearly redundant dab pages like Queen of Bollywood restored which again turned into a debate. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 01:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I've clearly shown I'm not hostile to the editor himself and actually warmly welcome him to participate and encourage activity in the task force as much as anybody. It can just get a little frustrating having to explain things to people again and again, and explain every course of editing people make, and to try to make a diverse bunch of people on here who often have conflicting views and interests and everybody happy. Thanks for notifying me if you think I stepped out of line but it wasn't intentionally unfriendly. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 02:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I am just wondering if there was a June newsletter released. Maybe I missed it or deleted it somehow, but I don't recall that. Thank you, -- Tj999 ( talk) 05:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your recent change to the page for the proposed Evangelion live action film and wanted to know why you did change it. I understand changes to the pages content, but there is now no way to access the page that was there now! Again, could you explain the reason for this? Thank you Ode2joy ( talk) 03:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a message on the coordinator page about the Start to B-class template a few days back, not sure if you missed it or not. Are we planning on adopting the C-class or remaining as is. Also for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality statistics, is the importance parameter going to be removed from this with only the Core list in it? Or do we have to approach the bot that updates this to add the Core list? -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The June 2008 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. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
When you have a moment can you take a look at this article? I am concerned with the changes made recently by Captain Crawdad, specifically the changes to the "cast" section, in which he added information that seem inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and is more appropriate to a fan site. He claims, on the talk page, that his changes are in line with WikiProject Films guidelines, but I have my doubts. I would like very much to hear your opinion. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't just sour grapes on my part for having some of my articles assessed as Stubs, but I can't help but feel that this is unduly harsh for the likes of Life is Cool and BABO as opposed to "proper" stubs such as (to give a comparable example) Lee Dae-ro Can't Die. How exactly do these articles fall short of Start-Class requirements?
On a related note, will the Film project be adopting the new C-Class, and how will the {{ Film Grading scheme}} be affected by the revised {{ Grading scheme}}? (I also see that the film grading scheme does not include FL-Class.) PC78 ( talk) 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
...about tagging Verree Teasdale and Ned Glass with the Film Project banner -- I didn't realize bios were outside the scope. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment at this CfD; I'm not sure what makes it "complicated" (perhaps my cack-handed attempt to explain it during the early hours of the morning!), but while I don't have a problem with simply dumping them all into a single category, I do think that such a category would still need to be renamed.
On a semi related note, I have also listed a number of film list templates at TfD. Those I've listed are amongst the most unnecessary, but in general there do appear to be far more cinema templates than what we actually need. I hope you don't mind my efforts to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you've heard of the new class (C-class) that has been added to assesment, which is why I come to you to ask if Fires on the Plain meets C-class. I know I've been bugging many editors on this issue of its class. It is currently a Start article. I'm pretty sure it has yet to meet the criteria for B-class. I'm aiming for GA-class (not yet of course) but am fully aware that I don't have many resources to make it so. I also disagree that (according to the assesment) "it still does not provide a moderate view" (this is qouted from memory). I'm not bragging about the article, but I think it provides a good amount of info. But anyways, does it begin to meet criteria for C-class? Yojimbo501 ( talk) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and just so you know I actually submitted it for a Peer Review recently. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay so I've added an opinion on weather or not we should support C-class. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I seemed to have err'd again. Is "WikiProjectBannerFilm" an old version of the "Film" template? I'll go through and check the stuff I did recently and make the change.
Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (
talk /
cont)
02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)