I'll have to recuse myself from this more general discussion. I only commented at Talk:Hồ Chí Minh Prize since it was film-related. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The username isn't a violation; you may want to retract that comment. We have precedent with other users such as Mark at Alcoa ( talk · contribs) who have a personal name attached to their organization. That's fine as long as it's clear the name belongs to an individual. The real problem with Emma is refspamming and cluelessness about COI. If she keeps it up without discussing on talk pages or WP:RSN, I'll block her. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems like as long as she only makes contributions related to Film Comment, it can be considered a promotional username. In any case, I redacted my username statement and encouraged looking at WP:COI. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

She just promoted again. I'm not finding a transition to being a seasoned editor that uses multiple sources very likely. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, my warning was time-stamped after that edit, so I'm going to keep watching before using the ban-hammer.

User talk:Mark at Alcoa is an interesting read, involving admins and a bureaucrat eventually deciding the name was OK and unblocked him, thereby setting the precedent. His intent was to edit only Alcoa and any related articles, which would cause his username to be considered promotional. The difference between him and Emma, though, was that he was up-front about it, took the time to read and understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, intended to abide by them, and treat his COI seriously, making only minor maintenance edits as needed and for anything else he'd propose it on the talk page. That's the sort of COI editor I don't mind having around here. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Addendum. We have an article on Film Comment. It seems to be a notable review site with reviews written by notable critics. Probably best not to be hasty about removing references to it even if they were added by a COI editor. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source; I've referenced it before. Still, I don't think such contributions are valid because keeping them justifies their promotional efforts. Films have numerous reviews, and we can only include a sample set of them in any given article. It is best for an objective editor to choose the reviews for that sample set that best assess a film's qualities (or lack thereof). It looks like Emma has stopped after your final warning. Erik ( talk | contribs) 01:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see 204.19.162.2 ( talk · contribs). Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. She can still edit by logging in. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed a couple of film articles that reference Film Comment and noted their similar citation format. Turns out Mslifkin ( talk · contribs) is another account involved in soliciting the periodical. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Erik. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Michael Fassbender. Thank you. Favonian ( talk) 19:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Erik, and thank you for your kind remark. Yes, I am both frustrated and angry. Your peers behave like ignorent idiots. I agree my contribution wasn´t at all suitable for the Plot-section, but instead of moving it to a proper section and elaborating it, they deleted it. The Alien-story's location in space, Zeta2 Reticuli, was extremely carefully chosen by Ridley Scott among millions of star systems, because of it´s proximity to earth and it´s newly discovered disc of debris surrounding the star.

It's as important as Titanics size and position on earth, 270 meters long and resting in the north Atlantic 4 000 meters deep. Without that information, Titanic's just another sunk boat somewhere. It carries the story.

Another battle I lost was the one about pharaoh Rachaf, Chefrens true egyptian name. Your peers couldn´t find this in lesser and ordinary english speaking encyclopedias/references, deemed it not important, and it was deleted. Stringence ( talk) 05:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This particular "ignorent [ sic] idiot" felt that since the information you added to the plot for Alien was already present in the article ( Alien (film)#Spaceships and planets, as has already been explained) that it wasn't necessary a second time. Pardon my "ignorence" [ sic] in avoiding redundancy. :/ GRAPPLE X 10:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We will have to disagree on the level of detail appropriate for the relevant sections. You may be interested in certain Wikias that exist outside of Wikipedia; some of them are about fictional universe and go into a lot of detail. One of my favorites is Wookieepedia; it definitely has detail you won't find on Wikipedia. I'm sure there is something for the Alien fictional universe too. As for Rachaf, I'm not familiar with that matter. In any case, I hope you'll reconsider your perspective of the editors, who are like you in wanting to share knowledge with readers. There are just different methods and thresholds. Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Sea Shadow (film) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 00:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! You definitely called out to the right editor. :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to work, Bibliography of film: film noir. If you could help build it up over time at Bibliography of film by genre this would be great.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize what you've done? :P I really like compiling this kind of information, and you've opened the floodgates for me. :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Well it did twig you were into film reference material by your lists and I was wondering why nobody has done this sort of thing before. If you can add the urls to google books often half the books are viewable or the covers can be seen and they can be checked out on Amazon. Its sort of then like having a film library on here.. Yeah potentially we could have hundreds of pages like this, I think its great for film studies and research.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like a great initiative. BTW, this will be excellent to mine for the film genre bibliography. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Erik can you mother List of film accidents. It needs a lot of verification and seems to get some traffic so needs to be watched by a few people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Without sounding insensitive to the other guy, but your last comment on the Taken 2 talk page genuinely made me lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterShiney ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you think is so funny. Sometimes it's possible for an editor to get caught up in the rules; it happens to me too. The guidelines try to advise for the majority of circumstances, but we have to figure out how to best apply them. This is not an uncommon occurrence; some multinational collaborations mean that people put American/French/Canadian/Spanish in the lead sentence. That becomes meaningless junk. As for talking with other editors, remember to focus on the content whenever possible, even to the point of overlooking personal barbs. And don't forget to relax in the editing process; some weak wording lingering in a Wikipedia article for a short time is not the end of the world. :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. I'll keep that in mind. MisterShiney ( talk) 21:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Marvel Studios#Request for comment. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 16:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget your QPQ! Abyssal ( talk) 15:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. With this edit you've removed sourced content from the Cinema of Nigeria article, and wrote "Removed refspam" in your edit summary. Could you please explain why you did this? Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 20:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure! 204.19.162.2 ( talk · contribs) had added external links and references to Film Comment all over Wikipedia. For Cinema of Nigeria, the IP did that here. If you endorse that addition, then you can restore it. Currently, Ethelbug ( talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet doing the same thing, so I'm undoing these solicitations until the account gets blocked. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply & for the info. Amsaim ( talk) 22:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you noticed the struggle to get user ratings on Atlas Shrugged: Part II.

You look to still be a film expert - you think you can get them to give it a rest? -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 18:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Erik, just a reminder that your DYK quid pro quo review is still not done, and it's been three weeks without an update on the review template. We hope to hear something from you soon there, and in any case, no later than a week from now. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The articles will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring diabetes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring home invasions, respectively, until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussions. The nominations will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussions focus on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the articles during the discussions, including to improve the articles to address concerns raised in the discussions. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion templates from the top of the articles. – Zntrip 05:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Erik, it seems you do some great work on films on wikipedia. Currently, there is a deletion debate on the award winning film Let's Make Lemonade. If you had a moment, it would be great if you offered you support for the article. Thanks! Yohowithrum ( talk) 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your kind words. However, please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. Please avoid spamming or campaigning. I will not be able to weigh in at the AfD. Regards, Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on WT:FILM. Sorry for misreading you (disputing/disrupting). I have just been warned on my talk page here: User talk:99.192.91.3 for removing "Top Critics" scores from Stargate (film) and threatened with being blocked. If you could post a message to editor "MisterShiney" pointing out the validity of the edit I would appreciate it. Thanks. 99.192.91.3 ( talk) 20:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's centralize the discussion at WT:FILM. You didn't have to start one at WT:MOSFILM. I'll message them to weigh in at WT:FILM. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I should also add, editor "MisterShiney" has now complained at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism that my edits are vandalism. 99.192.91.3 ( talk) 21:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've messaged MisterShiney. In the meantime, let's not edit the "Top Critics" scores out of film articles. There's no rush to get the content off Wikipedia. :) Let's go through with the WT:FILM discussion and see what everybody says. Sometimes if you run into resistance, it's good to just stop and start dialogue. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree again. So long as MisterShiney does not get me blocked, I'm happy to discuss the matter further first. 99.192.91.3 ( talk) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, feel that under the neutrality of Erik, I should point out that I didn't complain, I just asked for an admin to take a look at your recent edits. Didnt call you a vandal, just asked them to take a look to see if there was justification for your edits considering that you edited an essay without consensus based on a couple of editors on a single film page so that it reflected your views on the topic and then proceeded to make edits based on this. It was the only place that I knew of to make admins aware of edits. As for the "Threat of being blocked" that was a warning of being involved in an Edit War and about to go over the 3RR. MisterShiney ✉ 21:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution would be the first step. One does not have to involve an admin to resolve a dispute; an admin is just an editor with a few extra tools. It is really about starting dialogue, and it can be tough to accomplish that when opposing parties want the article to show or not show specific information before having any kind of dialogue. When neither party can concede even temporarily, the situation escalates. So dispute resolution is about dialogue, starting with the two editors, then including others as necessary. I also think that WT:FILM is active enough that if you run into film-related concerns, you can post there and get help from one of the regulars. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll bear that in mind next time. I will admit, all I saw as an IP user removing content and changing long standing essays. MisterShiney ✉ 22:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So it has been 24 hours since the last comment (mine) was added to the "Top Critics" discussion and I am wondering how one is supposed to know when a discussion is over. Also, how is one supposed to know what the outcome of a discussion is? It looks like people contributing have just been happy to have their say and now have wandered off to other things, but (as you might suspect) I would like to edit some pages as a result of this discussion, so I'd like to know how I will know when we are at that point. Thanks. 99.192.87.126 ( talk) 23:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

One more thought while I wait for your reply: I just discovered this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_8#Rotten_Tomatoes. In short, 23 months ago four editors contributed to a discussion about using RT's "Top critics" scores. All four agreed that they should not be used. One editor (you) suggested that WP:RTMC be edited to reflect this. You wrote, "We can modify the 'Top Critics' bullet under 'Limitations' to indicate not to use it." Betty Logan, who also has participated in the discussion over the last few days agreed, writing "covering it at WP:RTMC should be sufficient". At that point the discussion ended. WP:RTMC was never modified nor was there any further discussion of so doing that I could find. I worry that the same thing could be happening again. 99.192.70.9 ( talk) 14:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.87.126)

I'm not sure if you are around, so I have added the same questions I asked above to WT:FILM. They should be simple enough ones for someone to be able to answer. 99.192.75.232 ( talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You asked how you could help with The Day (film). Mainly just keep watching it! And try and work out why so many different user names are tinkering with it! — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I will take a look. :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also best wishes for your 2013 and happy editing whenever possible :-) Your return to editing here is one of the best things that happened all year. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  Aw shucks. :) Thank you for your kind words, and it is good to be back somewhat. ("Real" life always beckons...) I've enjoyed working alongside you; I can always expect good insight from you in discussions. I wish you a festive holiday as well! Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Michael! Happy holidays to you as well. :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Merry Christmas to you too! Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Cast billing. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, in addition to the above notice, I want to wish you Happy Holidays as well! Keep up the good work, as usual, Erik! All the best for the new year, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you too! :) I looked at the discussion, and I'm not quite sure what to recommend. One possibility that comes to mind is putting Les Amis de l'ABC in a side table (like you see at Panic Room#Cast). Perhaps you could do the same for the main cast members -- they could have their own side table with prose discussing them (since some characters like Cosette/Marius or the Thénardiers can be grouped). That would mean two side tables, if that's palatable at all. Erik ( talk | contribs) 00:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalk Page Stalker comment. I have been looking at that conversation and dipping in and out occasionally. Why are they notable enough to be mentioned in the cast section when they are all played by "nobodies" who have no star credits before this film? MisterShiney ✉ 00:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of the actors mentioned are those who were involved in stage productions of Les Misérables, so I can see some value in identifying them. As for actors in the last paragraph, there are blue links, so there could be some value there. There's no obvious cutoff when it comes to identifying cast members, but it may be more appropriate here because there are numerous adaptations with the same characters being recast repeatedly. Erik ( talk | contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Erik,

Thank you for answering my call for help on The Matrix article. I'm not sure I understand you correctly about your offer in looking for books for the article, though. You offered to provide a list of potentially useful books for me, and to look for them for me, but the problem is, I have no idea what's in them, and what part in them I can cite, so I can't tell you what I need nor can I read them and make use of them. As I said on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, I simply can't access an English book physically. Wouldn't it be easier just to have to join us in the article, and then you provide whatever statements you can provide from offline sources? Anthonydraco ( talk) 18:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(I was going to put this on your talk page, but I saw that you commented here.) Hi, Anthony. Regarding your comment at WT:FILM, I'm unfortunately hard-pressed to commit to a collaboration. I've tried a few times with other members of WikiProject Film, but the collaborative spirit just isn't there. Our preferences and interests are just too different most of the time. One time, I planned to collaborate on the Kill Bill articles (and outlined a lot of resources here), but the other editor bailed. In general, I tend to personally work on articles about films of relatively limited scope, like Panic Room. A future potential project is 25th Hour, for which I've already done some research. (I find it easy to do research but do not quite have enough time to tackle actual article work.) The problem with The Matrix is that there's no appealing deadline. I worked on Fight Club to bring it up to snuff in time for its 10th anniversary. I got it displayed on the main page of Wikipedia for the anniversary. The Matrix's 10th anniversary would have been that same year, 2009. At User:Erik/Sandbox#Anniversaries, I've listed articles with upcoming anniversaries that can help serve as a goal to get Featured Article status and to have it on the main page. That kind of target can motivate me.

For The Matrix, I am in the States and have access to a really good library, so I can get my hands on most of everything related to the film. The problem is that the incentive is not there. I'd rather do something like work on The Birth of a Nation for its 100th anniversary in 2015; it would be a tougher project than The Matrix, but there is something to shoot for. For what it's worth, the more appropriate film articles for you may be those not really covered in books, but more in periodicals like film journals of those of related subject matter. (EDIT: I say this because I can retrieve electronic copies and send them to you, as I've done in the past with some other editors.) Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Erik, thank you a lot for your comment in the the discussion about the International Online Film Critics' Poll. I invite you to tell my what do you think about my example of the page here: User:PassionFilm/sandbox. What do you think about it? Best wishes, PassionFilm ( talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a good start! I will want to check the sources for reliability to see if this award is notable. My initial impression was that it did not quite cross the threshold. I'm busy tonight but hope to weigh in this weekend. In the meantime, I recommend WP:REF#Repeated citations and using {{ Cite web}} and/or {{ Cite news}} templates for the links. Please nudge me if I have not responded by the end of the weekend! Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Erik, thank you for your answer. I think that the award has an excellent notoriety... I think the sources are very reliable, and above all HitFix and Filmweb. Sources from different countries (Italy, Poland, USA, United Kingdom etc...) indicate international fame... Not only, I asked help in the wikipedia live help chat where, they told me that the sources are very reliable. PassionFilm ( talk) 11:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I've moved the page here: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/International Online Film Critics' Poll. Best, 95.252.231.213 ( talk) 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Erik, what do you think about the article? I hope you have a positive opinion about it... Robert Hardy ( talk) 20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have raised issues in the talk page; join in discussion. Or you may improve Halloween II. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, George. I can provide general feedback, but unfortunately I do not have an interest in working on this topic. I'm happy to try to access any resource that may be available online but behind paywalls, but I think this is an article that needs a significant overhaul to be up to par with the most recent Featured Articles about films. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erik, thank you for your constructive comment. Can I ask you a question about sources of International Online Film Critics' Poll? Robert Hardy ( talk) 20:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When I opined for retention in August 2010 an article on the James Dalessandro novel did not exist. And my defending its retention in July 2012 resulted in my writing the article on the film. While I still think a strong case can be made that this unmade film has enough notability to merit an article under NFF, a merge and redirect (as a searchable title) to the novel would serve the project,and I would be willing to undertake the merge. Shall we discuss? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I just commented at the AfD! :) Ah, familiar territory for us, isn't it? I think it comes back to not clearly defining the topic. It's not art (in being a work of fiction), and it's not quite history because the coverage is in anticipation of art as part of the news cycle. I recall us disagreeing on this in the past, but I do not think that the level of detail on such plans for a film is warranted compared to when a film is actually made. As I mentioned at the AfD, I suggested Brad Bird as a place to merge because I think the majority of the coverage that has been done is because his name is attached. You know how I prefer to structure: starting plans out as a section under whatever was the reason for reporting (director, book, etc), and with crossing the threshold, there can be a definite topic that blossoms to be worked with. If nothing ever happens, then the section can remain mostly unchanged. Erik ( talk | contribs) 05:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I just uploaded my first image! (yay). Have added it to the article. Can you just give the fair use a once over and check that it's ok please? Thanks. It can be found here MisterShiney ✉ 10:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on the milestone! :) You do not need a lot of detail in the file description page, though. Look at File:Changeling poster.jpg from the Featured Article Changeling (film), for example. I admit that the community is not quite consistent with what wording to put in the template, but if that concise wording is okay for the film poster in a Featured Article, it can be reused. Also, I thought that guidelines recommend resizing poster images to 300 pixels wide when uploading, but I cannot find mention of that right now. I suppose you're okay in that regard! Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

OK cool. Well I have just resized the image so it is below 300 in width. Most of the wording in the template I used form Star Trek Into Darkness and others I had seen. So hopefully that will be fine :) MisterShiney ✉ 13:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you're golden. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

To: User talk:Erik. Hello. Are you the head of the Wikipedia Film Projects? If so, I have a question for you. If not, do you know who is? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

Erik's currently on a WikiBreak right now. If you have a general question, you could consider dropping a line at WT:FILM or consider asking one of the project's members who work on foreign films. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am cleaning up old messages from my Talk Page, that I had not tended to as of yet. Sorry for the delay. Belated thanks for your help in the above matter. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 23:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for putting unsourced version in the page, but there has been lots of killer toys all over TV series and movies. Don't these version have any source of their own? I don't think " Asylum", " Dead of Night", " From Beyond the Grave", " The Great Gabbo", and " House of Evil" are part of Killer toys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3323 ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the one reliable source supports a reasonable redirect, but not independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, hope you are well. Ever since the transfer all my things have changed. My editing options arnt the same and I no longer recieve emails when a page is changed even though I still have the option ticked and everything. Any thoughts...? MisterShiney ✉ 10:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any change to my login yet. I do not get emails about changes, either, so I'm not familiar with that. Sorry! :( Maybe if the change does happen for me, I can review and provide feedback. Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm never mind, seems to have corrected itself. I just now need to revisit all the pages lol. MisterShiney ✉ 19:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am curious as to why you re-edited out the correction I made to the composer credit for the film title The East ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_East_(film))? The film's music credits should read: Music by Halli Cauthery, Themes by Harry Gregson-Williams. This is verifiable in print in the film's reviews. F65748689920106A ( talk) 21:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it was a problem with the way the content was included. I've updated the infobox to mention both names, though I'm not sure what the best way to present the "themes" bit would be. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You know what, I've often wondered why I see a variety of ways of phrasing the numbers and you raise a very valid point in regards to budget and gross. I think, if another user wants it that way, who am I to not let them have it? Only various films, I'll use my way, but I won't do so if there's already a certain format laid out before I arrive on the page. Take care. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 ( talk) 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you've kept it my way, for now, which I do prefer, as it shows exact totals, which I care about. Some care about. I don't know if I want to keep doing that because I don't want to offend anyone else's style. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 ( talk) 07:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Before we do that, I want to see if you agree with something like this. $35,000,000+. If not, your way works for the budget. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 ( talk) 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No need for a discussion. Your way works for budget, but being specific with gross may work, if that's okay with you. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 ( talk) 06:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As an involved editor, you're invited to keep an eye on new developments at Star Trek into Darkness and its talk page. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I will watchlist it again if silence truly does ensue over the capitalization issue until new evidence surfaces. :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 00:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

While I don't think that my comment was too uncivil, I am always open to being more friendly, and I have refactored my post so that it is less "bitey" and more educational. Let me know what you think. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've created a nice quiet page about the possibility of enforcing a break from debating Star Trek into Darkness. Would you mind taking a look, and giving your opinions? You can find it here, and please feel free to invite anyone you feel would add to the conversation. drewmunn  talk 12:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, crap. I just saw the new RM discussion. Here we go again... Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I'm off to try and drain the atlantic with a mug. drewmunn  talk 13:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, there's a silver lining here as a result of the XKCD posting. It will elevate the capitalization attention beyond Wikipedia. The filmmakers can comment, linguists can comment, etc. Perhaps the end is near. :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully. Until then, we just have to deal with the flood of new editors and IP contributors. Interestingly, I've suggested to the RM instigator multiple times (in both the RM, and on his talk page) that he should withdraw the request, but he hasn't heeded my advice. If the Admins can't do anything, do you think it's possible that we have grounds to shut it down under the guideline I cited in the RM (do not have multiple requests on one page)? I'm not entirely sure of that guideline's remit, but it could prove helpful as a last resort... All of this pales into insignificance when you look at the number of new contributors putting in their tuppence to both the new RM, and the results of the old one. I feel a bit like an old man shouting "get of my lawn!" drewmunn  talk 13:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Drew, I made a request at WP:ANI#Star Trek into Darkness to get the RM discussion closed. I'm telling my friends about this XKCD posting now... haha. I'm part of webcomic history! Sort of! I didn't contribute as many kB as most of you. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#XKCD_alert... because there was already a discussion there. NE Ent 13:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I restored the section heading to point to the WP:AN discussion. I've already posted the WP:ANI discussion a couple of times. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My Head hurts! lol MisterShiney ✉ 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Worth reiterating here what I said at WP:AN. :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. MisterShiney ✉ 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, Erik ;3 -- Bartallen2 ( talk) 23:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So far a 7x expansion. Started as a 302 characters (48 words) "readable prose size" stub and it was a snap to bring it so far up to 2186 characters (356 words) "readable prose size" start class. Want to help out with a suitable DYK? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I would be good at researching it. Are you just using Google Translate to implement the sources? Erik ( talk | contribs) 02:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Checking with friends who are fluent in reading other languages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erik! Thank you for reviewing my DYK nomination! I just wanted to let you know that I didn't respond to your comment because I was away for a couple of days and now I see that the hook was promoted yesterday without the change you suggested... ^^ Sofffie7 ( talk) 19:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! No worries about the lack of change; the article itself was great work. Congrats on the DYK! Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I noticed that the info box does not list the November 16, 2012 wide release date on the Lincoln (2012 film) page. Disney is a client of my employer, so while I don't edit Disney-related Wikipedia articles, I would like to propose a change to add the missing wide release date to the info box. Here are a few sources supporting this proposed addition: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/steven-spielberg-and-daniel-day-lewis-speak-with-abcs-diane-sawyer-in-their-only-joint-television-interview-about-the-movie-lincoln/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/?ref_=sr_1 http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/12-new-lincoln-photos-as-film-heads-towards-wide-release-wide-acclaim-20121115

I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out in making this change. Thanks very much, and please let me know if there is any other way I can help to facilitate this alteration.

Jbettigo ( talk) 22:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You might remember my proposal about 2 years ago to split actors and actress categories, Consensus was strongly against for gender equality or something wasn't it. Can you at least inform User talk:Johnpacklambert than I'm not making it up?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halloween II/archive1 is relisted, so join in for fresher, newer comments. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erik. If you have time will you please look at the discussion at Talk:Shock Troops (film)#.22Presented by.22 credit. The opposing editor - Lugnuts - is currently blocked again. Block history. He does have a history of aggressive behaviour as outlined here so I'd prefer to get an experienced film article editor to look at this and wait for Lugnuts to be unblocked before doing an RFC. - Fantr (formerly fanthrillers) ( talk) 19:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I commented. You can post future notices at WT:FILM if you want additional opinions. However, I recommend writing notices neutrally. I don't think there was a need to mention the block; the focus can be on the content. Is there a valid argument or not for using quotation marks? That's all that needs to be asked, and we can put aside editorial conduct and build consensus with others' input. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added another comment, btw. - Fantr ( talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think the template is useful navigation when 2 of the 3 films are already on another template (the DreamWorks one)? That seems like a bad case of template creep to me. Oh look, one unique link on this template, it's totally useful for navigation! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm no fan of template creep, but the grouping of templates are all collapsed. It's possible that a reader would skip over the collapsed DreamWorks template to see what films Rob Letterman directed. Not to mention that the DreamWorks template does not identify the films' directors either. I think template creep is more of a problem with producer and screenwriter templates because there can be multiple people credited for either (which sets up for potential bloat). That's far less likely with film director templates, I think. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The FAR is relisted, so join in discussion. Meanwhile, do not hesitate to fix the article Jurassic Park. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarityfiend persuaded me to begin a draft article in my user space: User:Fantr/List of abandoned and unfinished films. I'm backlogged with articles I'm drafting. I encourage you to work on the draft article. The linked category in the draft article lists other unfinished films that can be added to the first table. Thanks! I'm going to invite SchroCat and Betty Logan to join. - Fantr ( talk) 21:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a neutral request for comments at WT:WikiProject Film/Comic book films task force#Iron Man's armor (film).-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 12:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, there is currently a discussion in place re the title of "Pacfic Rim" on the Article Talk Page, that if you could swing by and provide some input that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 12:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Erik. Thanks for your post at the film project talk page. You might already be aware of it but in case you aren't I wanted you to know that the conversation is also ongoing here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I did not know that was going on. Thanks for the heads-up! Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Always glad to have your input at any conversation at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. :) Hope you are doing well. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Erik. You were recently involved in a discussion on the RS noticeboard. I've been mediating this dispute, and I thought I'd let you know that one of the editors has put forward a proposed resolution. I'd just like to notify you of this opportunity to build consensus. The proposition in question is here. Regards, m.o.p 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, as you have not participated in this discussion, would please review the proposal at Talk:Iron Man's armor#Merger proposal, determine a consensus and close it. Thank you.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 12:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've been too busy today to be able to take a look. Maybe tomorrow, though I'd recommend asking someone else. Sorry! Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I need a little help here: I am having a conversation with an IP at Talk:Spirited Away#Spirited Away is Religion animation(SHINTO), but he doesn't understand me. Can you step in and help? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the FAC of Ra.One? Your input would be much appreciated. ~*~ Ankit Bhatt~*~ 10:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So which of us will be bold and move the Iron Man (franchise) to "Iron Man (film franchise)" or "Iron Man in film" in order to discourage the article currently about the films from becoming a duplicate of Iron Man in other media? This wouilkd also entail a cleaning up of other redirects so as to better serve the readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a request to move the article here. Wish the request was not made, but would like to see the move completed before shaping the article accordingly. I have a starting draft at User:Erik/Iron Man in film. Erik ( talk | contribs) 02:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I like how that is developing. Quite nice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been pretty busy at the moment, but I'll raise the issue of cast orders at WT:FILM when I have more free time.

Anyways, to answer your questions- I believe the infobox should be based on the poster. I consider it to be a separate entity from the cast section and different rules apply to it.

When the ending credits are alphabetical or by appearance, then the poster and/or the title credits should be used as long as two criteria are met: these credits are not alphabetical and they do not bill a prominent actor last. Otherwise, the order should be decided through discussion. Bluerules ( talk) 19:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good start. Look forward to the general discussion! Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think if movies that have end credits listed by appearance and by appearance, they should not be included because it will create confusion among readers. As for the other ones, that should be discussed in the general discussion. BattleshipMan ( talk) 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That is what Bluerules is saying. :) None of us want to follow any ordering that is alphabetical or by appearance. It is a matter of following ordering that is by prominence. Hopefully we can figure out some pointers for that. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. I think what we should do is discuss how the cast should be ordered in the cast section if they are in alphabetical or by appearance in the end credits. What I also suggest what we should discuss is how to discuss the issue of how we should set up the order of actors in the cast section. BattleshipMan ( talk) 23:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

One possible rule of thumb if that happens is to use other sources. Some reviews such as Variety's give a quick rundown. As for your last statement, are you asking about how to set up the discussion? We would have it at WT:FILM. I think that we should wait a few days or so because there are a couple of cases— The Dark Knight (film) and Gettysburg (1993 film)—that I think should settle down first. Erik ( talk | contribs) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We should also settle for other cases on some other film articles; including Olympus Has Fallen and The Incredible Burt Wonderstone because there has been dispute of cast orders there too in the past and yes, I'll be waiting for the invitation on that subject on the WT:FILM. BattleshipMan ( talk) 23:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The resason i believe that the article Journey (film series) should remain is because two films already exist, with a third confirmed by Josh Hutcheson, saying he's filming it Late 2013/Early 2014. What is the point in deleting it anyway? There is no harm in letting it continue to exist, seen as two films exist and a third is in pre-production. Just let it be, even if it does not have a third film release yet, it is still informative to the reader and does no harm by existing. Thanks Frogkermit ( talk) 15:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Frogkermit, per the notability guidelines for future films, it would be premature to have an article about a third film due to uncertainty of actual production. I have put together a few film series articles and have seen discussions on others. For example, The Santa Clause (film series) is up for deletion, but I am arguing to keep it due to the grouping of three films. I think a good way to compare that film series to this one is to look at Box Office Mojo. The Santa Clause films have their own franchise page here, but there is not one for the two Journey films. In short, I think the precedent is to have three actual films before having a film series article that can aggregate content. I will put it up for AfD, and we can see what the consensus turns out to be. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Frogkermit, I have put the article up for AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey (film series). Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry for being a real jerk. I really am, I was just angry with going around the internet and finding out that Zilla's being vandalised everywhere, and discovering that someone created two Wikis trying to take down Wikizilla, and I just had very little temper and I just spewed it out on you. Again, I'm very sorry for being so disrespectful, but I was really angry and I just had to take it out on someone, and you were unfortunately the one caught in the heat ray. I'm real sorry and I feel ashamed, I should know much better. If you'll ever forgive me, I'll be very happy. Thanks Erik-- sorry for all of that and thanks for your support. :) 493Titanollante ( talk) 03:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate that. :) No worries about it. I'm glad we could come to terms. Erik ( talk | contribs) 03:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are the names featured on the lower portion of the poster. I don't believe it's correct to narrow the names down to the four at the top because that would result in Jacob Lofland being omitted and Lofland plays one of the film's major characters. Bluerules ( talk) 23:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Bluerules, I see what you're saying. The problem is that to go ahead and list all the names defeats the purpose of the film infobox—to summarize information. I think we can do better than a laundry list of names, to use a different rule of thumb that can make sense here. It could be the top four names especially since Lofland is a no-name actor, or the top four names in the "Cast" section. I think some reviews pretty much name these latter four as the general stars in the movie, but I'll have to check. Do you think there's a way to bring down the number of names in a way that makes sense for this film? Erik ( talk | contribs) 00:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the best way to narrow it down would be to include five names- McConaughey, Sheridan, Shepard, Lofland, and Witherspoon. That way, we get both the four names on the poster and the top four actors from the ending credits. Bluerules ( talk) 21:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Tito Dutta ( contact) 10:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please try this tool too! -- Tito Dutta ( contact) 11:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean with "quote" "The world of Apu" and "Apur Sansar"! It sometimes gives better results than Google News search! -- Tito Dutta ( contact) 11:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Tito, I did do that. :) I searched "the world of apu" and "apu sansar" respectively. In your search engine, I see that it is 9,120 results versus 15,900 results respectively. I think you should report that comparison, but I was searching for what was most common in English-language sources overall. Erik ( talk | contribs) 11:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Thanks for pointing out the policy. I vented a little bit about notability tags so I feel a little better now. Thanks for clarification. If we had that type of communication on a regular basis, I believe that AfD consensus would be easier to reach. -- FoolMeOnce2Times ( talk) 12:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

FoolMeOnce2Times, it's not a problem. :) There are so many individual film articles on Wikipedia, and it can be difficult to check the notability for the portion that seems suspect. If you ever have any film-related questions in the future, feel free to drop me a line or post at WT:FILM. We're pretty responsive there. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And I just finished cleaning it up the best I could. Looks like the director actually wrote the article so I tried to make it as NPOV as possible. There really wasn't a serious NPOV issue so I am not sure why the tag was at the top of the article in the first place (again, tags drive me CRAZY!!). Anyways, cleaned up and tags removed. Thanks again. -- FoolMeOnce2Times ( talk) 16:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I respect your opinion, you are an established editor with a good reputation. As to what is going on over on RIPD, what are the thoughts on using the official website as a source for basic facts such as genre of the film? But not about this film, but films in general. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney, per WP:PRIMARY, articles should generally be based on secondary sources, and we use primary sources to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". The common example of this is using the film itself as a source for a plot summary. In this case with the genre discussion, I would not put the primary source (the official website) above secondary sources because I think genre classification is subjective. The policy says to include only objective content from primary sources. Like I said, I think it is best to defer to secondary sources that write about the film in prose and follow their lead. I think providing a few options on the talk page (I'm thinking "supernatural buddy cop film" as one possibility) so we can resolve the matter. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats cool. So would you say that as a basic descriptive statement of fact, using the official website for a genre would be fine? -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that facts are objective and genre classification is subjective. In most cases, the consensus among everyone (the filmmakers, the independent sources, us editors) can easily agree on a genre. Here, that's not quite the case here, so what I am saying is that the official website is insufficient for determining the genre. For example, if the official website said one genre but all secondary sources say it is this other genre, then we would follow the latter per Wikipedia's policy. We need to build a local consensus based on how secondary sources describe the film when reporting on it. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Was there a discussion I missed about this move? Prometheus the 2012 film is clearly the primary topic and the other is disambiguated, and you did it while it's in the middle of a FAC nomination. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 20:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, the film is not a primary topic. Only Prometheus is (as it lacks a disambiguation term). There were similar moves at Talk:Psycho (1960 film) and Talk:Independence Day (1996 film) from just "(film)" to ("19XX film") based on this determination that disambiguated topics are not primary. It should not be a controversial move and should not affect the FAC process either. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the film is clearly the thing people are searching for under Prometheus film, not a 15 year old film that didn't have an article until today. As for the FAC, renaming the article has broken the Wikiquote and Media portals on the page which I've only just noticed. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "people are searching for under Prometheus film"? The goal of disambiguation is to differentiate topics that share the same term. In the case of films, if there are two films that share the same term, they should be disambiguated from each other. The Titan Prometheus is the primary topic here. Everything after that has to be disambiguated, meaning that they are secondary topics. The point of the move is to ensure an enduring organization of these secondary topics on this encyclopedia. I referenced the Psycho and Independence Day discussions because there were older requested moves that failed because some editors thought that these films "deserved" the ambiguous term of "(film)" in their titles despite lesser-known films of the same name having articles on Wikipedia. Now the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of enforcing such distinctions. If you remain unconvinced by that, you can undo the move, and I'll go ahead with a move request. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erik, Thanks again for your advice on my proposed rewrite of the film ratings section for the Motion Picture Association of America article. I've now posted a revised version on the MPAA Talk page. If you have a chance, could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks! MPAA Kyle ( talk) 20:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy to snow that one. The nominator comments make it appear he may have a MAJOR misunderstanding of inclusion criteria for film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dude, I really tried to explain the policies and guidelines to him at Talk:Kill List and User talk:Darkstar1st, but it just didn't take. I think he needs to browse our film articles to comprehend how Wikipedia can be far more encompassing than other sources (other than databases, of course). Funnily enough, it led to me creating A Field in England and becoming curious about Ben Wheatley, whom I've never heard of before. :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he meant well, but his personal interpretation of WP:NF was so against standing consensus, it was somewhat surprising. I do hope he takes advice and seeks advice from others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I do too, he's been badgering for page moves on titles currently disambiguated by their capitals (like Kill List/ kill list, Field Trip/ field trip) and things seem not to be getting through to him so far. Maybe being overturned in the AFD will have tempered him some. GRAPPLE X 02:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Erik, Thanks again for your help getting the "Film rating system" section of the MPAA article into place. I'm not sure if you've seen, but I've posted a proposal for a new version of the "History" section over at Talk:MPAA. I'm especially keen to get this section moved over into the article sooner rather than later, since the current "History" section has quite a bit of material plagiarized from the MPAA's website, which isn't good for Wikipedia nor the MPAA. I'm wondering if you might have time to look at what I've proposed and, if okay, move it over into the article? If you have feedback and it's minor, could I suggest moving the draft over into the article and then work on making adjustments, in order to get the plagiarism issues resolved? Thanks! MPAA Kyle ( talk) 22:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erik, There's been some discussion about my proposed changes to the "History" section of the MPAA article over at Talk:MPAA. Betty Logan and Tbhotch each have a slightly different take, so a third opinion would be helpful. If you have time, do you think you might head over there to take a look and, if what I've proposed as a solution seems reasonable, move the section over into the article? Thanks! MPAA Kyle ( talk) 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I killed it because it is using arcane syntax features which should be only used in templates, overriding the standard enforced by Infobox film, and was only implemented in the four articles of yours out of the entire Wikipedia, while it should be implemented either nowhere or everywhere for visual consistency (feel free to start a discussion about it, but personally I don't care). See also the recent discussion at WP:VPT.

Also, I'd say that the 'R' part of WP:BRD should really come after the 'D' part, especially we're talking about multiple articles... this is just an unnecessary disruption to make twelve changes instead of four. Matma Rex talk 11:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Matma Rex, disambiguation terms are used to organize topics that have the same article title. It is only an incidental design of the system that in a Wikipedia article, the disambiguation term is displayed on such equal grounds with the article title of the given topic. I think the displaytitle can be used to de-emphasize the disambiguation term. It does not have to be gray, it could just be smaller than the title itself. While it was not originally designed for such use, I do not think that should prevent attempts to reuse features in new ways. Text formatting and table coding have been used for new purposes in presenting information. A new approach has to start somewhere. Erik ( talk | contribs) 01:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)