Jump to content

User talk:Sharnak/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


What happened to your page??

Expiring minds want to know! --Nemonoman 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Hey, you can't leave us now that all the fun started. There are still some articles to develop, like Who Came First, My Generation, etc. Hoverfish 08:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm moody. Chris 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Moody or not, I appreciate your further impovements in the Meher Baba article. Hoverfish 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sufism Reoriented

Do I place also here the MB navigation, or should they have their own banner? Hoverfish Talk 13:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think keep as you have it; not put the MB template on Sufism Reoriented page but link to them from the MB one as it is. Chris 13:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all this. I think it looks great and even my 11 year old daughter can now navigate all around on Baba. Chris 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How does Dhuni connect to all this? Btw, I brought some nav templates up top. It should be in one place in all articles. Also the pictures right next of the navigation didn't hurt. I changed back only God Speaks. I also removed some of my needless table code from where you have moved images away from the top right. Good idea, I like how it turned out. Hoverfish Talk 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if we keep the dhuni link. It's the only bona fide 'ritual' that Baba ever performed as far as I know. And it is still performed monthly at Meherabad. It is also a major part of the Amartithi celebration. Chris 19:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I did a special Dhuni (Meher Baba) article. In the Hindu version of Dhuni the cleft in the ground, rather than the fire, is emphasized, the cleft representing the female vulva and the Earth Mother Goddess Shakti. So I now see why you were bewildered by its inclusion in the template. (-: Chris 14:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Upasni Maharaj

There are no citations in the section of this article about his teachings. Could you provide them? Kkrystian 15:56 (UTC+1) 3 January 2007

Yes, I will look that up and add it. Sharnak Talk 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindusim and Polytheism

I reverted your deletion of polytheism from the Hinduism page, so I thought it would only be fair to leave you a note to explain myself. I agree with you that nowadays the earlier view of Hindusim as a 'vanilla' polytheistic religion is considered simplistic. However the relevant sentence on the Hinduism page is (hopefully!) not saying that Hinduism is polytheistic, but rather that aspects of its philosophy encompass polytheism. For instance the Hinduism article on Encyclopedia Britannica says thats, "The religion reflected in the Rigveda is a polytheism mainly concerned with the propitiation of divinities associated with the sky and the atmosphere." (I do think this too is a over-simplified picture) and "Dayanand rejected image worship, sacrifice, and polytheism and claimed to base his doctrines on the four Vedas as the eternal word of God." (there would be nothing to reject if there were not strains of polytheism in the religious texts and/or practice).

I hope my viewpoint is clearer now. Thanks. Abecedare 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that that short encyclopedia entry on Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't cite any sources (so we don't know where the authors of it got the information from). Moreover, saying that Hinduism is polytheistic is too far-fetched a statement. The Gita, Vedas (etc.) do not mention in any palce that there are many gods (rather the opposite - that there is only one God) so we cannot say that Hinduism is polytheistic. Kkrystian 17:38 (UTC+1) 3 January 2007

Shirdi Sai Baba

It was me who placed those templates at the top of the article. I didn't have the slightest intention of marring his face (I am a follower of Shirdi Sai Baba). I don't in the least object to removing those templates as long as this page is put in the category as needing expert attention. I believe this solution is good because it doesn't spoil the looks of this article and it at the same time requests expert attention. Kkrystian 19:34 (UTC+1) 4 Jan 2007

I think your solution is very good to add to categories. Sharnak Talk 23:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cott, I'd like to know what references you are using to determine the Baba's YOB (Year of birth) as 1838? It is a very well-known fact (even in primary source literature regarding him) that his origins etc. are unknown, so what is the source for 1838 as his birth year? Thanks. Ekantik talk 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lord Meher p. 65 [1] Sharnak Talk 03:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, this could be problematic as it could be thought of as an unreliable source. But hey, not to worry, I'll start work on improving the article soon and probably we can all discuss the options then. Thanks for replying so quickly, much appreciated. Ekantik talk 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Thank you Chris! I appreciate it. You are surely worth the Meher Baba Barnstar, but it hasn't been created yet :) Hoverfish Talk 15:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no special procedure up to class B. If you think that an article fulfills the quality guidelines, remove class=stub and enter class=start or class=B. Glad to see your user page active again. Still waiting for The Book here. Hoverfish Talk 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I went ahead and made it B class. Someone can downgrade it if they like, but it's at least a Start. Sharnak Talk 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to help with The State of Things. I think it's a cute little article for a cute little film (that happens to be a favorite of mine). Sharnak Talk 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's getting to look good. I like the screenshot you added. - I have uploaded some of my photography in commons. I give a link in my page. Hoverfish Talk 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I really like your film camera photos. Seems they will be very useful for the film Wikiproject. Sharnak Talk 23:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hazrat Babajan

Could you please provide sources for this article? Kkrystian 15:14 (UTC+1) 10 January 2007

I added reference. I hope people realize that "Lord Meher" is not just a website but a published book. It was put online only recently. It's a strange book, but a published book nonetheless. Sharnak Talk 15:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robby muller.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Robby muller.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You deserve this

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I, Nemo Noman, award this constantly turning barnstar to Sharnak, who is constantly turning out better and better articles about Meher Baba. Nemonoman 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
A well deserved award. My warmest congratulations. Hoverfish Talk 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both. It means a lot to me. Sharnak Talk 20:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Samadhi

Thanks Cott. It's getting there ... Best Wishes Gouranga(UK) 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Unheimliche Geschichten.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Unheimliche Geschichten.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Meher baba7.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Meher baba7.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Meher baba8.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Meher baba8.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above images have been fixed or are in the process of being deleted. Sharnak Talk 15:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dios Habla.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dios Habla.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Meher lynott3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Meher lynott3.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Image has been deleted. Sharnak Talk 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Orphaned fair use image (Image:Meher Baba 7.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Meher Baba 7.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Eruch4.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eruch4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 08:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jung book

Hey, glad to see you enraptured (took me a while to figure it out). As said, I don't have my book of the 4 Archetypes. Maybe it's about time to order some books I'm mising. Will look into the article for minor improvements till then. Hoverfish Talk 09:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for this [2]. --- ALM 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ALM, There are many of us that feel very bad about the argument over this image, and have much sympathy. We don't know what to do. Among us are some genuine academics who can see through the polemics. I quote here from a good friend in Austria who brought my attention to the debate. "I offered my humble opinion, and then quit, as I don't know enough about all these policies and guidelines to be of any real help. But as I mentioned tactfully, these editors are into polemics and all their arguments sound like pertences to me. It's not that I like religions or the way Islam preoccupies people, but I don't see any point in offending people and using Wikipedian "rules and hi-ideals" as an excuse." So best wishes. Sharnak Talk 14:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well said sir.
BTW. Some people said me Anti-Jews however, I think there are so many cool Jews people which could be my very good friends. Like you , User:Arthur Rubin, User:Dev920 and many more. I wish to have a Jew friend in real life but not able to find any Jew around so far. --- ALM 15:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Consider me your Jewish friend, but also your Christian, Sufi, and Hindu friend. As you know there are many many of us Jews, even in Israel, who stand for peace and respect for all faiths. Sadly the world is currently embroiled in empty hate on all sides of everything. Working together, maybe those of us that believe the deepest tenet of our faiths, that there is only one God, will prevail to spread peace - not just tolerance, but to even learn from one another. Peace to you brother. Sharnak Talk 16:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sander, not Ganz

Hi

Your photo from Wings of Desire is Otto Sander as Cassiel, not Bruno Ganz as Damiel. Best wishes, 82.45.248.177 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ganz pic

Nice one! Thanks. 82.45.248.177 00:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Sharnak Talk 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is TOO Ganz...

It's Bruno Ganz as Damiel.

see IMDB picture of Ganz.

But I see you already figured out that you were right. --Nemonoman 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: You should put your barnstar(s) someplace obvious.

Thank you Nemo. But I believe the user was rght that I had the wrong image from Wings of Desire. I had the wrong angel. I switched the image without changing its name, so it appears I only reverted the edit, but I actually changed image. Here's the before and after:
That's right. Chap on L = Sander, chap on R = Ganz. The pic is now correct, but was not when I commented. Sharnak moved with praiseworthy speed in putting it right. Yes indeedy! :) 82.45.248.177 13:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments.

Thanks for that. I do need, though, to stay away and not get tempted back in. Thanks so much for the kind words. 82.45.248.177 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Steve MacKay

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox actor

Well, you are in WP Biographies territory there. I don't see any imdb in Template:Infobox actor except from official site, nor in the generic Template:Infobox Biography. Check in the archives of Template talk:Infobox actor, they seem to have gone through the issue at times. That's the only start I can think of. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 13:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I put a query at Template:talk:infobox actor. Sharnak Talk 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mast_mohammed.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mast_mohammed.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Recommended for speedy deletion. Sharnak Talk 12:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mehera3.jpg

Could you please send the permission you have for this photo to permissions@wikimedia.org so Wikimedia can keep a copy of it for legal purposes? Please also include the following link in the e-mail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mehera3.jpg

Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sharnak Talk 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred Ott

Hi, I just bumped into your edit in Fred Ott and had to revert it as the film article was just created (Fred Ott's Sneeze). Any relation to Fred by the way? Hoverfish Talk 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I might be related to him. I only know as far back as my great grandfather George Ott who came from Germany. Sharnak Talk 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Shastra

Hi, do you know when the Shastras were written? THis article doesn't state it and I think it should be written there. Krystian 08:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't know. Sharnak Talk 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/The Lama Foundation

I am providing this notice because you have created or contributed to the article The Lama Foundation. This article is being considered for deletion. You can participate in this discussion here. Edivorce 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Welcome

Welcome!
File:Transparent film reel and film.png

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
  • Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stubbing

Normally yes, although the way we arranged the {{film|class=stub}}template, it displays the film stub upgrading info. I have already brought up the issue but it got set aside. I will try to get our techs to include a parameter about the type of film article it is, so in awards and other general film topics the upgrading info doesn't appear. When this is taken care of, I do plan to make a big round in all award article and check their categorization etc. Also some awards needs lists of awarded films, like the one you did. We'll get there some day. By the way it's amazing how many editors have edited the one paragraph Locarno article and it's still one paragraph! Hoverfish Talk 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I will just wait then til things catch up. I am surprised Wikipedia only has 20,000 films and IMDB a million. About Lacarno, I guess there are only so many ways to say 'beautiful.' Apparently people love it enough to work on it, but can't think of what to say. Sharnak Talk 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving cinematic genre

Cut and paste moves are frowned upon. If you'd like to move the article there are instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically you move an article by pressing on tab "move" at the top of the page, entering the new name plus a reason for the move and pressing "Move". This way the edit history and its talk page get moved along. Else they get lost in a redirect page somewhere. However, since this is not a simple misspelling or naming convention error, it needs to go by the book (proposal in requested moves + discussion in its talk page). First I would test if it is contested by posting a note in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. When this is clear, you can decide what procedure to follow. I've been through this procedure once when a list had to be renamed. I will drop the word in the project and you can take it from there. Hoverfish Talk 05:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will take those steps.Sharnak Talk 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. In keeping with the teach a man to fish principle, I'll walk you though it:

  1. Click here: Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM for short)
  2. Once there, scroll down to Step 1 and copy this: {{subst:WP:RM|PageName|NewName|reason for move}}
  3. Edit the section under today's date and paste the above at the bottom of the list.
  4. Replace "PageName" with "Cinematic genre", replaced "NewName" with "Film genre" and put what you'd told me in place of "reason for move"
  5. In the edit summary box, type "added [[Cinematic genre]]" and click Save page
  6. Under step 2, copy {{move|NewName}}
  7. Go to Talk:Cinematic genre, edit the page, paste that at the very top (save the page if you'd like)
  8. Back at step 3, copy {{subst:WP:RMtalk|PageName|NewName|reason for move}}
  9. Again to Talk:Cinematic genre, paste that at the bottom, replace PageName, NewName and reason for move with the same information as previously and save the page
  10. Finally, you can edit the new "Support" subsection and type "# '''Support''' As nominator. ~~~~" and you're done.

That's two steps easier than quiting drinking. If you have any troubles I'll put everything in place but it's pretty simple once you get the hang of it. Move requests last about a week usually, I doubt there'll be any opposition but keep the page on your watch list. Cheers, Doctor Sunshine talk 07:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Yes, it is better to teach a person how to fish than do it for him. I followed your steps, and will follow Hoverfish's advice also. Sharnak Talk 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I will copy somewhere Doc's step by step instructions, as I may need them some day. Instead of further advice, a request: can you please take a look at World cinema and see if the definition of the term "cinema" agrees with what you have learned in USC? Is it really so connected to foreign films? (see also talk page) Hoverfish Talk 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the article on World cinema is generally well written and true. Use of the word "cinema" within the Hollywood industry, on the whole, is more common in discussing international films. Also the word "cinema" is generally seen from within the industry as slightly pretentious and alluding especially to French and German films, denoting films that are more artistically than commercially motivated. Even Jarmusch's films (which are very artitically ambitious and rarely very commercial) are referred to here as "films" and rarely "cinema" so I think the word carries connotations of non-Ameican ventures. The word cinema is so rarely used in the states that the non-English section of most video rental stores remains labeled the "Foreign film section." However, my degree reads "USC school of cinema-television." Interestingly, in England people go to the Cinema; in the U.S. we go to the movie theater. I think the feeling that "cinema" is intellectual is not just a perception limited to the U.S. Cahiers du cinéma always seemed to carry that feeling, but I can't be sure. The words "cinema" and "film" in California are sometimes used to demarcate two whole other worlds with mutually exclusive intentions. For instance I heard an associate producer working in a studio who had higher artistic aspirations say, "I'm not interested in films; I'm interested in cinema." Another important thing to point out is that in film theory in the U.S. (like is bandied about at USC) the word "cinematic" (especially relevant to the name change I suggested) will more often refer to the photography or cinematography, but not necessarily the sound, acting, etc. If we say a film is very "cinematic" we usually mean we were impressed by the images, or it had great sets and locations, etc. It refers in Hollywood to the atmosphere, but not necessarily the film as a whole. So some of Spielberg's films as commercial as Jaws might be called extremely "cinematic" but not referred to as an example of "cinema." It remains just a film. So even a crass commercial producer might refer to Jaws as "a very cinematic film" and mean it approvingly, but in the next instant want to throw up if you use the word "cinema." He makes "films" after all. Or so the talk goes. Sharnak Talk 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My personal experience is that most filmmakers I have known and been around only use the word "film" even to describe favorite foreign films. For instance we talk about Wenders' or Jarmusch's latest film. And we talk about German film and French film and foreign films and art films. It is more the people who want to make a sort of intellectual divide between forms of art that seem to like to emphasize the word "cinema" as something different. Personally I love Pirates of the Carribean and Night on Earth equally. But it annoys my artsy friends who feel you need to choose a side, like there is a war going on. Most open-minded film lovers in the US use the word "film" because it's less exclusive, and that's what bothers them about the word "cinema." It is so often used to create a divide as if there are two art forms. Sharnak Talk 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! I have been using it as per American Heritage Dictionary, in the sence of "film industry", and so has my British colleague Blofeld. This explains also why there was an immediate reaction when he placed Template:CinemaoftheUS in some notable films. We'll have to give it an American reconsideration. Hoverfish Talk 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Film Templates

As far as the templates go the word "cinema" may be fine. It is technically right. And for the sake of continuity with similar templates you might consider leaving it as it is. Sharnak Talk 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of the "standardized" format we are talking about adapting for all:

Your opinion is most welcome. Hoverfish Talk 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I kind of liked the blue ones, but I can see benefits of the white one. It might work better along with other templates by not taking too much attention. Are you planning on allowing more than one template per page. For instance in Wim Wenders I created and put a director navigation template at the bottom and it might get gaudy to have a similarly eye catching national one. So that might be an argument for making them smaller and less consuming. But I do like the blue. Sharnak Talk 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be cool if there was a way to combine bottom templates, so that one stripe could say 'films directed by..." and the next stripe down say "cinema of Thailand" and it not appear stacked up..

The way the Japanese templating is used it should be altered as above. One template if we must have one for that major Japanese director (but it must be modified rmeoving the red like the direcotr plate above and the general Japanese plate -I don't want to see more than a maximum of two templates at the bottom of anypage so this would be fine ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 10:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld, Not sure what you mean by "removing the red." I like your suggestion of limiting to two templates at the bottom. Perhaps you are referring to this:
Also, on the subject of cinema vs. film, I may have overstated my case. I think Cinema, as the American Heritage Dictionary states, technically applies to the medium itself or the industry. So World cinema, Cinema of the US, Cinema of Japan, etc. are good and consistent with the way Wikipedia applies terms. But a film is a film and definitely a film genre is a film genre. A film projector is a film projector (not a cinematic projector) and a filmmaker is not a cinematic maker, and so forth. In short, if we had to define these terms for Wikipedia, I'd suggest that 'cinema' applies to the industry as Hoverfish said, and 'film' applies nominally to works of that medium. Sharnak Talk 11:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it looks much better and unobtrusive. You'd better answer however to the objection (or request for clarification) given in the talk page of the US template. It's about an article where you transcluded it. Hoverfish Talk 19:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nashik8.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nashik8.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

US Cinema template

It was actually me who created the American template as all the other countries, However many didn't share your views and considered deleting all the templates. I personally think it looks fine too ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that was then. By now they are pretty much established I would say. Hoverfish Talk 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work. Sharnak Talk 17:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Baba categories

Can you give me a briefing of what you think? Hoverfish Talk 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I looked at Otto's contributions and sorting cats seems to be his specialty. I have no strong feelings about it. It might be good if the subcats are at least within the main cat so they can be found. But it seems a bit dumb to have cats with 1 or 2 articles in them. What's the value. About his eliminating people who met but didn't follow Baba from the follower list is fine with me if it's fine with others. Personally I thought it was fine, but I don't have any bone to pick. What do you think? Sharnak Talk 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The note you added in the main category makes it really clear for all, I hope. It also is as true as it can be and quite encyclopedic. Let's hope categoriezers will get the point in the future. Hoverfish Talk 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and for the follower thing, yes it's fine with me. I am also not into all this terminology with followers, lovers and likers. For me it's something I never gave it a term and no term ever fit right. I will let it for those who have more knowledge on terminology and where it applies or not. The reason for the exclusion sounds correct. A list should contain what the title implies. The rest could be acceptable as trivia IMO. Hoverfish Talk 14:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sharnak Talk 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Baba (2002 film).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Baba (2002 film).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ~~ AVTN T CVPS 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharnak/Archive_2&oldid=1190101544"