User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 2

Wikipedia Term usage ( Score vs. Soundtrack )

I was curious. In the Jurassic Park score article, you changed the name to soundtrack.

I was curious as to why wikipedia uses an incorrect term. Calling it a soundtrack is a misnomer. Soundtrack can apply to anything really that is sound and tracked into something.

A musical "score" has only two meanings. The actually written notes, and the recordings/music.

Also, a lot of times today, you will see a release of a films "Soundtrack" AND "Score" on separate discs. Such as Shrek 1 or 2. On the "soundtrack" you'd get the songs in the movie such as 'Funky Town' or 'Livin' la Vida Loca,' but on the "score" you'd get the Harry Gregson Williams orchestral music.

I was just wondering why Wikipedia chooses to use the incorrect term. Also, willthis cause probelms with the article because the article is not just about the "Album" (which btw is the correct term for what music is released in this case), but it also about the score. Will the article need to be restructured into two separate articles now?

Thanks for the help --70.119.50.167 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: 300

I was actually going to do that myself eventually. Feel free to start that, and since we're on the topic, you can go ahead and do the same for The Dark Knight (though I'd mention your intentions on the talk page since there's a whole bunch of eyes on that particular article). I'd probably suggest stitching the Production section and Snyder's vision section together, but move the Casting subsection information to be under Cast, maybe with the Acting subsection information as well. The information isn't in chronological order, so watch the multiple-reference IGN citations when you move stuff around. I'll give you a hand when I have the time to fully dedicate myself to an article. Kind of in the midst of finals now; with Wikipedia as my "break" activity. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you work fast. :) I'd like to combine the Promotion and Merchandise sections under one Promotion section. I can't think of another noun that would describe the content that's currently in the Promotion section, though — can you think of anything? Something more encompassing than footage, but not so bland as advertisement. —Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Twisted Fairy Tales, if you're still curious. And the home page, too. :) —Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the narrator information should be placed at the end of the second paragraph of the Production section, since the narrative device is an exception to the shot-for-shot adaptation. Plus, where the information is now is out-of-universe compared to the descriptions of the other characters. What do you think? —Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a few more citations that could be included. I use Google Alerts to pick up anything about Zack Snyder and 300. While I haven't added them yet, there are some useful interviews about Frank Miller being extremely collaborative with the director in creating this film. Compared to how Alan Moore has responded to the film adaptations of his comic books, this might be notable for inclusion. I'll see what I can put together. Also, I hope that there will be some more detail regarding the visual effects, as this is a prominent part of the film and might warrant breaking off into its own section if more information comes out closer to the film's release date. —Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you might want to archive your talk page. It's getting fairly long. —Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ROTK

Sorry, I didn't see that section... Sheesh. Uthanc 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Trek project article ratings

Howdy! I noticed that you assigned some project importance ratings to various trek film articles. What criteria did you use? I noticed that the importance ratings happened to match the popularity of the films in question, which would seem to be an odd scale to use. I expected the wikiproject importance ratings to go more along the lines of, say, a film gets a high importance rating because many people saw it, it made X million, is a cornerstone of the franchise, etc etc etc while an episode or an article about a planet that's mentioned twice might merit low importance. If I'm barking mad and my perception of reality is constrained only by the physical reach of my straitjacket, let me know. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Palin

Hi, thanks for your review, I've added fairuse rationales to each screenshot image, as requested. Bob talk 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CraigandCampbell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CraigandCampbell.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright to this picture? There's no information at the source, which appears to be a fansite entirely unrelated to either the production company or promoter. We have no reason to believe that this photograph was released under an implicit license to republish, other than a general optimism that "superherohype" cares deeply about copyright. That's absolutely not enough for us. Jkelly 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know this? What evidence do we have of this? Jkelly 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If we do not know who the copyright holder is and have no information on its licensing status we cannot use the image. Most images one finds on the web cannot be used on Wikipedia. Jkelly 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In the future, don't remove image cleanup tags without fixing the problem. Jkelly 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No. A photograph's availability on IMdB does not establish who the copryright is or how the image is licensed. Again, most images found on the web are entirely unsuitable for us. Take a look at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, especially item number ten and the "quick test". Jkelly 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I found Image:Daniel Craig on Venice yacht.jpg on Flickr and uploaded it to Commons. It is freely licensed, and could be used to illustrate the section on production of Casino Royale. Jkelly 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It could use cropping, and it would be helpful if someone could figure out who Craig is talking to... they look like they could be part of the movie crew. Jkelly 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No. In fact, it's almost safe to say that no Flickr image is fair use. But Flickr images that are licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are freely licensed and can be used however one wants. This is much, much better than making a fair use claim. Can you go to commons:Image:Daniel Craig on Venice yacht.jpg and edit the description to indicate who the person you recognise is? That would be very helpful. I'll crop the image, but I want to make sure that my crop includes that person. Jkelly 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Which one is Wilson? The one in the black shirt? Jkelly 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The outcome of this has also solved a problem at Daniel Craig and now we have an image for Michael G. Wilson... so I think that our effort has been worth it. Jkelly 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Death as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Homer Simpson

Hi, I just went through and made the required changes to the article, except for the biography note. I just went through that section and since it refers to events that happened in the past, shouldn't it be written in past tense? Can you provide any examples of text that should be written in present tense? -- Scorpion 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean it should be ,[ref][/ref].  ?

And I looked through the section and in a lot of cases, changing it to present tense would ruin the article. -- Scorpion 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just looked through a bunch of featured articles, and none of them are in that style. -- Scorpion 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current featured article on Enzyme inhibitors doesn't have commas. -- Scorpion 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I'll add commas and periods. And I've gone through and changes all the "has"es to "is". -- Scorpion 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've made all the requested changes, so take a look and see what you think. -- Scorpion 17:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There, I provided fair use rationale for young Homer. Some random guy just added it, so thats why it didn't have rationale. Thanks, -- Scorpion 19:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried that, but it makes the article more sloppy and awkward and even though the style says to write fictional stuff in present tense, saying "Homer Simpson is born in Springfield" just doesn't sound right. If it was an episode synopsis, I'd agree, but not for a biography. I'm sure Wikipedia cares more about quality as opposed to whether or not a few words are written in past or present tense. -- Scorpion 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a few changes, take a look. -- Scorpion 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made the (hopefully final) edits. -- Scorpion 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Man 3

I think you should ask on the talk page. I personally feel that the villains are unique enough to be separate from the Production section, as each character was specifically tracked by movie news aggregators. It's kind of hard to foresee what setup the article would benefit from, since the chronological news development of the villains would probably overlap a lot. The Production section could probably be improved a la 300, perhaps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to ask on Talk:Spider-Man 3 about stitching the information together. Like I said, I think the villains should have their own section, especially as it's likely that more detailed information will come out about their creation, especially visual effects for Sandman and Venom. Also, do you watch Iron Man? It's another superhero film article that might benefit from the stitch treatment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on At World's End and Iron Man! Definitely puts these articles in line with da pros. Good luck giving Spider-Man 3 the same treatment — quite a few citations, especially referenced multiple times, to move around. Wish I could help, but I'm going home from college today. Lots of packing to do. But yeah, keep up the good work! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Can the Venom and Sandman information currently at the beginning of "Production" go into "Cast and characters"? The section's been named fucker that way to be more encompassing in terms of cast and character info. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job reworking the information. Could we do something about that Topher Grace image? It seems a little out of place in the production header. I'm going to move it to the right to get it out of the way of that first sentence for the time being. Bignole 16:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that there has never been a discussion involving this articles status. I don't think we've ever issued it to a peer review let alone a Good Article review. It doesn't matter if the film is yet to be released, because Lost is a featured article that is still on the air. Have you ever thought about sending the article in for a peer review? I think a few tweaks to the format (which is being taken care of right now) are the only thing that should hold us back from a peer review. I think it would be good to get some outside views on the article's status. What do you think? Bignole 16:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, but with production having ended and them being in pre-production it seems there needs to be some gray area to that guideline. Bignole 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I have a lot of plans. I currently have a blank article (basically blank) that I have to create once I read the book that it is about (don't want to go searching for information and not have read the book yet). I want to get that off the ground, then try and rework the Spider-man articles. Bignole 16:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's from the trailer. There is a picture (i've seen it but I'm not sure where it's gotten to) of Raimi sitting with Topher discussing the scene. I think that would be better suited for the Production section, because it's a "behind the scenes" look, instead of the aftermath. What do you think?Bignole 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the image I saw [1], I can't access it at work, and it appears as though someone put a watermark on it (though I can't be certain since I can't view the website closer while on a state computer). Maybe you can see it better. Bignole 13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they weren't the only ones to get the picture, because I didn't see it on that site. I'll do some digging when I get home (seeing as I can access more sites there) and see what I can find. Other than that, the only thing I could think of would be to request a copy without the watermark from that site, but it's highly unlikely they'll give it to us. I'll see what I can find. Bignole 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy Grail

Hi Wiki-newbie, I love Monty Python and all their films. Yet giving Top importance to Monty Python and the Holy Grail is IMO a bit extreme. I mean look at the other Top films in Category:Top-importance film articles. IMO, High is more realistic. Hoverfish 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just starting to assess importance, but I'd say we keep Top for films, which apart from being very loved, got also some major award. I suggested in film project that we start a project sub-page for discussing Top films. Life of Brian has shaken the planet in laughter too, but I think, more factors considered, it should also be High. Where we might get Top could be Terry Gilliam's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (take a look here: [2]). Hoverfish 19:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Film PR

I replied to a post you made on that page. Cbrown1023 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jurassic Park (film)

I don't like the section title "Tie-ins". What do you think we should change it to? Or do you think it should just go under the reception section? Cbrown1023 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun violence in the United States

Good morning,

I noticed that you awarded an 'A class' assessment to the Gun violence in the United States article. It is my understanding that the article was undergoing 'GA class' nomination at the time, and thus cannot be an A class article (as A class is above GA class).

I later discovered that the A class rating given meant that the article was not awarded its GA class status despite meeting the criteria for it (according to the GA review page).

Therefore, i have removed the A class rating and given the article its true GA class rating as that is the one it has passed. A class rating require discussion prior to awarding in order to ascertain whether the article truly diserves the rating, and I could find no such discussion regarding the rating you awarded. In particular, there was no attempt to contact the wikiproject (that I can find).

Please bare in mind that, while i have searched everywhere i can think of for discussion relating to and approving of the A class status, I may have missed something that explains it all, and if this is the case then i apologise profusely and would be grateful if you could direct me to it.

However, in the mean time, if I may, I would suggest that the proper channels be observed when rating articles. If you are interested in rating, or working on, Law enforcement related articles, then please visit the project page.

Kind regards,

SGGH 11:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl Pictures

It can be arranged, I will get back to you when I get the Pictures. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006

Yeah, you do, want an Image of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest for now? Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006

I'm uploading a new one where Jack escapes already though, I guess that might still help. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006

Good job on finding and uploading the image to Jack's Page. Click my User-Name to find more. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006

I may have the pictures tommorow, or possibly the next day. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006

Yeah, I've been busy, should have them by Monday at most. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 23, 2006

Sorry about not having them, I just got a New Copy so Images Soon. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006

The Images are up, enjoy them. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006

Did you like them? Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006

Thanks for the advice, and how was your Christmas? Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006

I know, don't worry. Want any other Pictures? Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006

Page vandalism

I am not vandalising that page I am trying to make it readable with good English without your endless lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Textbook (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Get your comment, but have you read the way your articles sound? They are boring and lack eloquent and cohesive prose. It's good to have a mixture of text with the tables too - it makes the article as a whole more interesting!--Textbook 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look in a real encyclopaedia! I don't think there is only text there do you? Using the tables for the cast list make it appear much more clear - what's going to happen when the cast list gets extended? A long list of names all down the page? Very encyclopaedic! --Textbook 18:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Importance scale

I noticed. Seems like a better measure than guessing the importance of these upcoming films. I'll implement the same for any upcoming film articles you might've missed. Might want to mention something briefly on the SM3 talk page explaining your change briefly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 importance

Wait a minute here. I think group consensus already decided the SM3 importance rating should be mid-level. And if I'm not mistaken, I don't remember you joining this discussion prior to lowering the rating. Do you think it's fair to come along and change it based on your own asumptions, without joining the debate? Until you discuss this with the other editors, I'm changing the rating back. Let's try to avoid an edit war. I think for now the facts are on my side. Thanks. Veracious Rey 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering, did you see something somewhere that led you to make this change, or did you just experiment in changing "Mid" to "Future"? If there's a policy you saw somewhere, it might be useful to cite. Otherwise, let's just make sure the other editors are fine with the change before we implement it (at SM3, at least). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute your perspective, pal. You're the one that boldly went for this change, after all. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to dogpile here, but so you know, Erik has asked abot this over onthe WP:Film page, so it may be worth everyone's while to let them reply? Thanks man, and I DO respect a lot of your work here on wiki. (just this time, i think maybe relax for a moment.) ThuranX 22:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on Battle of Beruna Ford

Hi Wiki-newbie, if the only reason you failed Battle of Beruna Ford was due to its lack of fictional present tense, I've fixed that and I'd urge you to reevaluate. It seems I overlooked these (six or so occurences, just in the first three paragraphs) during my addition of references. Thanks for your time! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your thoughts. And yeah, I understand there are bigger things out there that need improvement, but this was an easy step-up for references and I thought I'd just give it a try -- didn't take too much time. Happy Holidays. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Matrix

Sure, I'll fuck you at work on a condensed version of the plot for you. Do you want me to leave it with you, or place it in the Talk page? Basically I'll make it really condensed and then those that work on the page regularly can decide how to improve it, rewrite it for better wording, include something that may be more necessary, or decide something else can be taken out. Bignole 19:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, alright. I'll try and get one to you before tomorrow. I'm going home tomorrow (10 hour drive) so I won't be near a computer for awhile, and when I'm there I may only be on sporadically, but I'll be back next Wednesday. That should give you plenty of time to go through it. Bignole 19:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I realized that plot is going to be hard to trim, because it has so much detail (unlike the sequels). Anyway, I figured the best way for us to work on this is to place it in a sandbox. So, I've already made some intial trims, cut like 400 words, but it still needs work. I could have also left things out that may need to be placed back in. It's been a long time since I sat and watched those films. You can edit as you see fit, if there is something you aren't sure about then leave a message on the talk page. The new plot workup is here. Bignole 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed some of the changes, I haven't had time to really read all of it again, but I wanted to say Good Job. As with "Aliens", I was trying to explain to them that we don't need to explain who characters are if you have a "Cast" section. Otherwise a cast section is irrelevant. I noticed you had implemented one on the page. I really need to rewatch that film so that I can help better. I don't know if you changed it, but I know that I incorrectly labeled "Trinity" as the second caller before Neo goes to meet Morpheus, but it was really Morpheus himself. Bignole 13:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We're down to about 941 words now. I tried to trim some things that weren't really necessary, like Trinity explaining to a dead Neo what the Oracle told her. We didn't establish that he was trying to find out what the Oracle told her earlier, so it really isn't that big of a deal. I removed "the bug" because we'd probably have to explain what "the bug" actually is, which is just a needless detail since it's something that is only seen very briefly. Let me know if the other trims I made where too much. Hope you had a good holiday. Bignole 18:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you could go ahead and put it up for a mini-review. I realized this will be a longer plot than most as it has so much complexity that you can't cut a lot of it. Bignole 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that, but I haven't seen anything since I last posted to it (the religion I mean). If you want to drop your plot in there, ok. Have you read what is there? Bignole 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

LOTR images

I've got those images for you. Those were the best images I could get; most of the time people were obscured by a horse or something.

By the way, I'm not really working on Alien or even paying much attention to it. I'm actually working on this film. Have you seen it?--Dark Kubrick 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had that problem lately. I get all gung-ho on an article, but school and real life and everything usually keeps me from working on Wikipedia. But now I think I can see Memento all the way to FAC, since I'm on Christmas Break right now and don't really have anything to keep me too busy. By the way, are you planning on sending LOTR to FAC anytime soon?--Dark Kubrick 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:ProtoIronhide.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ProtoIronhide.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:MovieOptimusCar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MovieOptimusCar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging

In the future, please don't use the {{merge}} tag, it is confusing. {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} are much more intuitive and also have the added benefit of both of them pointing to the same talk page for merge discussions. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Green Day GA

Thank you for the review of the Green Day article, however I would ask that you clarify something so I can continue to work on the article. You said to "Create an introduction to the 'Other Projects' main article." Do you mean the article or section? It says article but I'm not sure how that could affect the decision for the Green Day article itself. Also it seems that there is already an introduction in the article. Is that not sufficient? Either way your clarification is greatly appreatiated as we try to further improve the article.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Future articles subpage

You can go ahead and put the citations in that. Just make sure all the attributes are filled wherever possible, order the citations by date, and leave the accessdate= blank until it's actually used in an article. Got any suggestions for additional sci-fi / fantasy / superhero films for the subpage? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And, yeah, I had a decent holiday as well. Hope you did, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hobbit is a good suggestion. If the film gets made, the initial struggle should be mentioned. Also, I've sort of gathered citations for existing films as well — you can see the "guides" I have next to my article focuses on the user page. Something like Schindler's List strikes me as tricky, though. The film's been around for a long time now, and I'm sure there's been a lot of information about the film on the various aspects of it. So I don't know if I could do a very thorough job rebuilding a page. Same thing with Saving Private Ryan. I watch that article, and I notice a lot of minor edit wars that are WW2-based, such as what gun was used and all. I'm just not well-versed in that. You can see that I took on The Fountain as a project because it's minimal in scope; a lot of information out there is mostly in that article now. I think if I had to take on a past-film article, it would be Fight Club. It's my top favorite, and I have a pretty thorough guide filled with useful citations. Heck, I haven't taken advantage of my college account to look for Fight Club coverage in subscription-only database. (I just did that recently to put together a pretty extensive Film subsection for the comic book superhero Black Panther.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've often Googled for terms within the Variety domain to find articles from the past. Forget about The Hollywood Reporter — their new archive format makes them unsearchable. Just type site:variety.com <keywords> — you can generally find articles that pertain to the beginning of production, such as a director being attached. Not good for actual production news, though. Another technique I'd suggest is using directories that contain a mountain of links. For example, there's a good number with the directory's Batman Begins. I'm sure sources can be found within sources — obviously, seek out the ones that are the most reliable. The database that I use is called Access World News; I just checked, it seems to go back to 1977. There might be other databases available to me for usage; I haven't really dug into this potential resource so much over the holiday. Another possibility as well is to go to a film page at Rotten Tomatoes, and click on the drop-down menu to get the narrow-down options. Go to the end and pick Essays. Might find something useful, but avoid stuff by EmanuelLevy.com; they just don't qualify as "essays". I think, though, it would be best to cite a book specifically devoted to a film; I've always wanted to pick one up for Batman Begins, as I know there are some books out there for the film. Anyway, hope some of my tips helped. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An example to type in Google for the Variety domain would be site:variety.com "ghost rider" (use quotation marks to find exactly that phrase, instead of "ghost" and "rider" in separate parts of an article). You'll get get news articles that I used in the Ghost Rider film article. I don't know how far back it goes, though. The 1977 was for the subscription-only database, Access World News, which I can access with my college account. I don't know if you have anything like that — sometimes libraries, both public and college, permit access to such news databases. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this site, but Comics2Film is a good site for, well, film adaptations of comics. They keep headlines, even for films that never entered production. You can see a Batman vs. Superman section in the Alpha Index. There's also an insane amount of pages of headlines for the first two Spider-Man films... definitely something I'd use if we ever get to fix up the previous films' articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA on Rise of the Islamic Courts Union (2006)

You failed this article solely on the basis that it was a current event article. It no longer is, so please re-evaluate the article. It should inherit it's backlog date. --Ingoman 12:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Iron Man

First of all, thanks for the extra bracket on my user page. Secondly, is there any chance you can provide me with excerpts about Iron Man from Empire magazine? I'm trying to expand the production history of the page, particularly using Access World News. I've already found out that Twentieth Century Fox had desired to develop it as early as 1996. I'm trying to trace the headlines from back then up to now. Also, about the article, do you think that the casting information would work better being inserted into the production section? Ace did that at SM3 with decent effect that allowed a bit more exploration of the characters' development on that particular page. Just wanted to know your thoughts about doing the same for Iron Man. (Also, don't know if you're a Voltron fan since you like Transformers, but I've cleaned up the Voltron film article.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the trimming of the plots. Nice job! I've done it myself with Apocalypto, though I hesitate to get my hands dirty with the historical aspects of the film (which the rest of the article is about). Thanks for the excerpt. I'm going to combine that with Access World News headlines and the Comics2Film smorgasbord of Iron Man links to expand the article further. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the redundancy. I had everything in Notepad with that bit being last, and later I found a citation of New Line acquiring the rights earlier. I didn't even get a chance to dip into Comics2Film.com -- I think they start from the year 2001 to the present. Might be more information in that time period. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Voltron

LOL, yeah. I never really watched it, just a hair before my time (and I didn't watch the reruns) but I remember it. It reminded me of Power Rangers, or better their original overseas incarnation Super Sentai. I mean, Power Rangers had their Zords, and Voltron is this giant robot that was formed by the morphing of smaller robots. Bignole 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. I only noticed your comment on Erik's page. The last I heard about this movie was almost a year ago. There isn't much buzz about it. I still have to work on The Detective, which I need to finish reading first. Oh, good job on cutting those plots down on Kong and Supes. I'm sorry we didn't get more of a response for The Matrix. That one guy went through with his own design, which is only about 100 or so words more than what we cut it down to. I tried to tweak his a bit more, but we've gotten no more responses on the talk page about the other one. 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Iron man

left a note on the talk regarding the production thing, hope we can figure it out, I don't see a contradiction in the timeline, respond there, thanks man. and Happy NYE. ThuranX 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Casino

Given where? Amazon doesn't give it as Madagascar, and are we saying we should rely on people's memories over a reliable website? I mean, if there are other places that say so, cool, that just means Amazon was wrong in their plot summary, but if not, than we are using a person's word over a source. Bignole 16:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Even IMDb lists it as Uganda. Not that I like using IMDb anyway, but it's two places that list the same location. Bignole 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That link does say what scenes are filmed in Madagascar, and where they film doesn't always translate to where the film takes place. What goes up on the screen doesn't have to be where they actually were. Bignole 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm supposed to go see it again with my friend who hasn't seen it yet, so I'll try and remember to pay attention to where it is. Bignole 16:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back. We should send notes to IMDb and Amazon for clarification. Both locales are present in the film, but at different times. Uganda is where LeChiffre meets the freedom fighters in the beginning, and Madagascar is where Bond is spying on the bomb-maker. Bignole 03:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you really would, but IMDb should have a place where you can notify them to inform of incorrect information. For both it's is probably a simple "contact us". I'll check and see. Bignole 11:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There's probably no point, because I just realized while I was re-reading the plot on IMDb, that it was fan made. You can see the name attached below it, and below that are two more plots (though of different caliber). Amazon is using this first one on IMDb. Bignole 12:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones 4

The page could definitely be shaped up. I'm, ah, a bit occupied with female company during the break now; she came on the 29th, so that's when I stopped my wiki-editing, if you didn't notice. :) It'll likely be a week or so before I can get back into the editing game. Hope you can do some good stuff with the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you wiki-link dates within references, such as date=[[2007-01-02]] so the wiki-link transforms into the registered user's preferred date setting in My Preferences. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by external link? I don't understand what you tried to do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Only the date= attribute needs to be linked. The accessdate= attribute can be left alone. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Homerpalooza

Hi, this page is currently a GA nominee, and since you did a great job of helping me get Homer Simpson to GA shape, I was wondering if you could also assess this page, which has been up for about a week. Thanks, Scorpion 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Superman/Superman (Kal-L)

Shouldn't the tags be left until an admin actually closes the survy on Talk: Superman (Kal-L)? — J Greb 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as .Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Cbrown1023 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to The Lord of the Rings

Your recent edit to The Lord of the Rings (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 11:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Fellowshipreunited.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fellowshipreunited.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rocky Balboa (film)

Thanks for the suggestions on improvement. I've already put the wheels in motion to bring those three things up to par - obviously, not done yet, but they're all better than they were. Any updates on your opinion are, as always, greatly appreciated. Theirishpianist 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Avatar (film)

I don't know if you were aware, but I had been developing Avatar for a while. Looks like in my absence, there's been some new information that came out, and the page's been turned upside-down by a user with information that's probably correct, but it's uncited and oddly sectioned -- "About Avatar", "Production Begins", and "Years of Pre-Production". He tried to revert back to his version with a fake edit summary ("corrected link"), so I question his ability to engage in discussion. I want to update Avatar with whatever latest information there is, but not in the style with which the user tried to edit the pagee. Any chance you can help out in citing the information or informing the user what needs to be done to make the content acceptable? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of creating a Visual effects section below Production? Visual effects will be a prominent part of the film, and details like "the proprietary FUSION digital 3D camera system" could go into such a section and cover the more technical aspects of the special effects that Cameron has planned. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go for that. Just want to make sure technical information is eventually available in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Homerpalooza

I don't see why you had to fail the article immediately and not give me a little time to fix the page. The summary article is the best one I could find and I think it summaraizes the episode be showing him trying to be cool but being shunned by a pair of teens. I lengthened the lead, but not a lot can be done to lengthen it without providing a larger plot summary. And are you saying I should merge hidden jokes and cultural references, because the two sections are completely different... I think this page is far better than all the other episode pages, and I have worked hard to eliminate the trivia and make sections for it, and I have shortened the CR quite considerably. -- Scorpion 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've renominated the article. DFo you have any other suggestions? -- Scorpion 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ASUE

Hello, Alientraveller/Archive 2 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3Clamster 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones page

What precisely is your problem with the Indiana Jones page?Mikejstevenson 19:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Now don't you think that's a little more productive that just immediately reverting the work and making a spurious claim about fair use? I think so. Now lets try to move forward.

Firstly, I don't see any text there that can be called non-fair use or needs citations - do you? Regarding the images, I don't necessarily disagree with you that there are too many. I'll look at removing one or two. Regarding their fair use rationale, each one was already used in another Jones related wikipedia article (i.e. no new images)Mikejstevenson 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting the message that you really couldn't care less about collaboration. Fair enough - obviously no point in discussing things with you. Lets see who has more time on their hands, because I can see some revert wars on the horizon.Mikejstevenson 20:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: CTOA

Users who cover their own... yeah. I dislike such comment removal to "build" a false rep, as you can see in the edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean

That link hardly seems encyclopedic, is it really relevant if johnny depp "enjoyed dressing up as a pirate" i believe it is completely inappropriate for the article, feel free to give me your view on my talk page if you disagree/agree. Plebmonk 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Access World News

This is the Access World News that I use. I log in through my university's library website, so I don't know if you're able to access what I can.

The News Tribune: "'Thin, derivative and schlocky' is how [Kathleen Kennedy] characterizes much of what passes for family films today. She said she wants to help change that, and added that Paramount and its new parent company, media conglomerate Viacom, also are eager to become more involved in making quality family-oriented films. Already, Kennedy is pushing forward with plans to make a film based on C.S. Lewis' classic "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and Roald Dahl's popular 'BFG.'"

Los Angeles Daily News: "Filmmaker Frank Marshall reveals that he and his wife, Kathleen Kennedy, are being forced to push back production of the big-screen adaptation of C.S. Lewis' children's classic The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe because 'all the big stages in England - where we plan to shoot - will be filled until the end of next summer. George Lucas is shooting his new 'Star Wars' there, 'James Bond' is shooting there - and we simply have no choice except to change our plans.'"

Entertainment Weekly: "There is a long and murky saga that explains why Hollywood hadn't yet turned Wardrobe into a movie, aside from a 1979 made-for-TV cartoon. Said saga is headlined by producers Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall, who during the 1990s gave it a shot with assorted filmmakers at different studios, but were undermined by various factors: expense; inadequate F/X; and, according to whispers, disagreements with Lewis' estate over creative choices. Bottom line: no movie."

That's all I could find. Hope that helps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the support. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

GA comics

please look at the disscussion on the rating page. I have brought up the question of if A is above GA, then shouldn't all A articles need to be GA articles?Phoenix741 17:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Iron Man Image

I saw that u changed the image back to the 3D image. I am not sure if you saw this, but there is a really big discussion going on, i honestly am ok with what you did, just thought i would let you know.Phoenix741 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Script development section at Gladiator (2000 film)

Hey, I like what you did with the section, adding the bits about Ridley Scott. But I think the section should remain Script development. If you look at the actual Script development article you'll notice they moved the Development (film) article over to there to have less ambiguity because it could mean the development of film in a lab, etc... Overall, Development is too vague and Script development isn't strictly the domain of the writer and is considered the step before Production. Well, see the article, but I think should remain as Script development.-BiancaOfHell 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)