User talk:Erik/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Fight Club reception section

If I have a suggestion about the section it would be to recast the Rotten Tomatoes paragraph to account for the fact that the reviews it lists are taken from all throughout the last eleven years, including the period of its original release. This means that it doesn't support the fact that the film has been reappraised since the original, polarising, reaction, nor that it had one in the first place. The "Top Critics" section, however, with the exception of two from 2002, lists reviews exclusively from around the period of the film's release, and this may be a better page to cite, at least to support the fact that it split critics. However, to get around the first point, as Wikipedia does allow (despite WP:OR) simple calculations, I wonder if you couldn't just use RT's raw data to work out the score from reviews after 1999? As long as the calculation is detailed in a footnote of some kind, I don't think there'd be a problem when it (eventually!) comes to FAC. Steve ^{T • C} 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For the "Top critics" I think they would be OK only if RT isn't being selective with those it's sampling, which I know has been a worry for older films (97% for Alien?!). Have we any way of determining that? And I think without using your own calculation (i.e. removing all those with the date 01/01/00 and working it out from there), it would be difficult to cite the overall Rotten Tomatoes score as a retrospective one (though, as I say, I think such a calculation would be permissible). With Metacritic, on the other hand, a random sampling of reviews revealed none from after 1999, so it would seem to be a much better indicator than RT here.

Once it's fleshed out some more, breaking the section up into segments might be a good idea if it gets too long, though there's a lot in the critical reception section that might ultimately sit better in a "Themes/Analysis" section instead, several quotes that talk about a specific theme without... endorsing it one way or the other. I'm not sure how you'd section it by location, or publication type, without that seeming arbitrary, with nothing else to link them, unless there was a clear-cut difference in consensus from these groupings. On the other hand, separating out the quotes into acting, editing, direction, etc. as I tend to do can be lacking in real depth of coverage for these disciplines.

I don't have any access to offline sources, but of course I'd be happy to help incorporate anything you can throw my way, be it in the reception or any other section. Just let me know what you'd like me to look at and I'll set aside some time once Changeling is out of the way. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, once the section has been fleshed out some more, eliminating RT and Metacritic from the article body in this case would be prudent. I've been wondering recently whether it's necessary to mention them so explicitly in other film article reception sections. At articles where they are of use, maybe it would be better to simply cite them as we would any other source ("Jaws 19's reception was mixed,<ref>''MC''</ref> with 2/3 of film critics giving the film positive reviews.<ref>''RT''</ref>").

"How important is it to convey the entire opinion of a film critic?" If they have specific criticisms to make about a certain discipline that you want to cite, and a fair summation of any other good points he/she made have already been covered elsewhere, then it's not so important, IMO. It may not even be necessary to name them or the publication. I've been toying with the idea of taking Changeling's reception section in a different direction to the norm, along these lines. Written more as one would an "Analysis" or "Themes" section, without attribution. It'll be more difficult (and if it doesn't work out well, a more traditional section can be written), but it would allow for a more encyclopedic and fact-based tone. Something like that could work well with Fight Club. As was brought up in the discussion on amending MOS:FILM, we can say "no original research" until the cows come home, but the whole of Wikipedia is built upon it. Even the best-cited article still relies on editor interpretation of those cites, and on which cites to actually use. And while the guideline we've put in place at MOSFILM is the best one to avoid arguments on individual article talk pages, it comes at a slight cost to article quality. I'm not sure I'm getting what I want to say across very well, because I was supposed to be asleep 45 minutes ago and I'm rushing this, but if you're unclear on what I mean, let me know and I'll try to expand on this in the morning. Oh, and I've had a look at User:Erik/Fight Club (film), and I've a couple of ideas as to how it might be presented. I'll let you know when I've had my 5 hours. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the dilemma with incorporating the "Interpretations" section is always going to be one of either comprehensiveness or length. To fit the section within the existing article without it becoming bloated is going to mean barely touching on the themes explored. Maybe it should therefore be written hand-in-hand with the "Interpretations of the film Fight Club" article, using summary style. Remember, the "Interpretations" article doesn't have to be the best that can be written right off the bat; as long as a good base on which to build is there, this can evolve over months or even years. The main article can then focus on only giving a reasonable summary of these interpretations.

The other important thing is to exercise your own judgement more than you might be comfortable with, in terms of determining which source gets priority over another, and which to include in the first place. Some might get whole subsections, others merely a one-line mention in the introduction to the section. I know you're a big fan of avoiding even the appearance of original research, but that will be inevitable with even the best-cited analysis section. Individual editorial judgement is used with the inclusion of almost any cite on Wikipedia. In effect, we all use a prose variation on the Wikipedia "simple calculation" in paraphrasing information from a consensus of one. With the amount of information you've gathered on Fight Club, it might even be easier to determine what gets pride of place and what should be taken with a large pinch of WP:UNDUE. As long as there's a clear train of thought for the inclusion of exclusion of something, this can be argued compellingly should it ever come up on the talk page.

Another recommendation I'd make would be to ultimately weave the current "Filmmakers' themes" section into the relevant subsection of "Interpretations". While Fincher's interpretation of his own work is no more important than that of third parties, it's perhaps no less important either. Fincher's views are, I assume, shared by some of these academics, and it might seem odd to have similar interpretations outlined in different sections.

I'm sometimes hired to write technical manuals. Starting one of these from scratch is pretty daunting, as I find myself almost-literally buried in schematics, scribbled notes, and 500-page development folders. Experience has taught me that starting out by writing one comprehensive subsection, then the others in turn, never works out well, and quickly leads to burn-out and the evaporation of motivation. I strongly recommend treating the section as any other stubby future film article, as if the deeper readings into the film haven't yet been uncovered. A sandbox list should be made of maybe half a dozen main themes the film explores, turned into headings and populated by a couple of lines of facile, broad sweep commentary about each. It doesn't have to be perfect right away, and this will provide the "solid base on which to build" I'm always banging on about. Gradually adding to the subsections as if uncovering new information might not be more time consuming in the long run.

So with all that in mind, the first question is a simple one: what themes do you see as the most prevalent in the film? Steve ^{T • C} 09:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying. I decided to leave it a couple of days while I thought on it and did a couple of other things, and that turned into a week. I was going to ask you to drop in on the JFK FAC, as it happens; I had a feeling that for a film of that cinematic importance, there'd be all sorts of great material in the journals and whatnot. I think what stopped me was that I didn't want J.D. to think I was creating hoops for him to jump through as soon as he'd cleared one. I hoped the omissions from the Salewicz book I had would be enough that he'd withdraw it on comprehensiveness grounds. It's a good article, but still somewhat broad stroke for my tastes.

I brought up the idea in my last message of determining critical consensus on your own. You implied that you thought this could be construed as original research, or weasel wording (e.g. "Everyone thought Brad Pitt was great" cited to just two critics). But what I meant by a "simple calculation" in prose form was more along the lines of going the whole hog and basing it on the opinions of all of them (or at least all of those conveniently listed in one place, like Metacritic), rather than just a couple. If say, 90% of the critics listed at Metacritic thought Pitt was great, then it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to put that into the article ("Most critics thought that Pitt was shit hot in the role") as long as you could back it up with your reasoning if challenged ("Dude, 18 out of 20 of [these] critics praised his performance.") It stretches interpretation somewhat, but maybe doesn't break it. It would require a fundamental shift in the way some editors think about WP:OR to accept it, and more importantly it would require trust, but could lead to the writing of much more comprehensive and well-written reception sections. As it stands, we pretty much waste a lot of space with ensuring all bases are covered, even minority opinion ("...a couple of idiots thought Pitt was terrible.") But this is more a general thing; I know for Fight Club you're lucky there's a bunch of retrospective analysis to draw on. Any of these you want to throw my way I'd be happy to take a look at, btw.

I was actually going to attempt something like my idea above with Changeling's reception section, but with only a few days left until its release, not enough reviews had been published (embargo until 31st). So I opted for the more traditional approach in yesterday's rewrite. How do you think that looks? I'm concerned about the length, but I wanted to cover the points that most of the reviewers did. If you've got any criticisms or suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them. Steve ^{T • C} 10:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey. You seen this? Seems like an excellent idea; I had a play around with it earlier. The output is consistent for the first time, well, ever. I was getting so frustrated with the inconsistencies between the "old" {{cite x}} templates I was probably only a couple of days away from converting those in SoP and Changeling to text. Steve ^{T • C} 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember Bodnotbod bringing that up about Hancock's reception section at the time; he thought the same, that it makes the section difficult to add to. But I'm not sure I agree with that. Any one comment from any one reviewer could be replaced quite easily. The comments are intertwined, yet (barring two places) entirely separate. And because this can be done without necessarily deleting their contributions in other paragraphs, it may in fact make it easier to add new reviews without bloating the section. Enough reviews are out now that it's pretty obvious what they're tending to focus on (Jolie, the script, Eastwood); which reviewer is cited on these things is almost immaterial as long as there's a good spread of opinion. When more reviews are out after the 31st, I'll likely chop and change a few of the comments with ones from the new reviews. Indeed, I may have to replace Oliver Séguret's (Libération) altogether; his review has disappeared from their website. Hopefully it's just temporary. Steve ^{T • C} 22:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable reliable sources

I've lost so much so much faith in the UK media for reporting like it's more than hope and dreams. After this and claiming Cher would be Catwoman, I've lost what little faith I had in the Telegraph (well, whatever faith I had). Funny old world, I know we wouldn't cite Rich Johnston for an article about the war in Iraq but we gotta give their ilk more credit in our guidelines really: they can smell the real nonsense. Still, I'm glad the wrong version just says "reported", but my faith in the wiki is still shaken by how the admins gave into an IP who always changed his address.

Anyway, are you aware of what the possibly changed ending is? Alientraveller (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe 'image_size' will work for now until I can find a more suitable version as requested. Alientraveller (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is huge though. You really sure you just want to tag it and have Melesse come along? Alientraveller (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? Alientraveller (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFF as it pertains to incomplete films

Was wondering if you could consult on this? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Gran Torino

It is a little sparse isn't it? It looks ripe for some embiggening; I've some bookmarked Variety articles about it at home, I'll take a look later and see what can be incorporated. Do you think we should include any of that sh*t about those initial rumours of its being a new Dirty Harry film? Steve ^{T • C} 15:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no. It's not a new Dirty Harry, it's actually an introspective drama about a racist war veteran. But the press had a field day with it when Eastwood revealed the title and nothing else. In lieu of any hard information, one website speculated that it might be a new Dirty Harry film. The idiots in the mainstream press, as usual more concerned with an interesting story, ran with it for a while before the truth finally came out. Steve ^{T • C} 15:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what context you mean by "piece of work", but there's some slight disappointment there, because I've followed JMS' career and he always comes across as humble and genuinely thankful for his lot. I wanted it to do well, for him. :) Still, I think the low RT score will go up some as more reviews come out. Most of those initial bad reviews were from websites that are predominately contributed to by younger writers; Changeling's target audience is older, as are most of the mainstream critics. Incidentally, that "generally favorable" looks out of place there followed by the low RT score. I'm almost hoping it drops a point to 64 so I can change the wording to "mixed" so the section is consistent. :) Steve ^{T • C} 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I didn't think you were being sarcastic, I just didn't know exactly what you meant. And JMS' career seems to be on the cusp or something or nothing. Lots of screenplays written, very little produced. He's got a well-reviewed script for the film adaptation of World War Z out there, They Marched Into Sunlight for Greengrass, something for Wolfgang Peterson, the Silver Surfer film. His career could go either way right now, depending on which of those is actually made. I did enjoy the Wachowski-produced V for Vendetta, directed by the Ninja Assassin guy, so maybe the latter will turn out better than is expected. Steve ^{T • C} 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather, Straczynski's screenplay takes the form of a series of after-the-fact interviews that incorporate flashbacks, though it's a little unclear whether these will be "found footage" or dramatic re-enactments. More likely the latter, from what I hear. This is where I first heard about it, AICN's most upstanding contributor calling the screenplay "one of the best pieces of screenwriting craft I’ve encountered in a while". From the description, this should really go to Fincher, or maybe Greengrass? Steve ^{T • C} 22:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Important discussion

Talk:Batman (1989 film)#Reliable Sources. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Universal Soldier III: A New Beginning (2009 film)

Hey i nominated that article for deletion would you mind voting clicky. I could not find any reliable source if you found any add it. Thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace

My mother is a big fan of James Bond movies, and I'm not really sure what to expect. I'm very worried that this movie will either be too technical or too boring. And I won't make a video asking anyone else but you, since you're a movie professional. Well, by that I mean professional about movies, not making them. So tell me, is it all worth it? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic workshop

See this discussion concerning moving my topic workshop draft into the project. Feel free to propose any potential topics you have in mind. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving Wikipedia.

I came to Wikipedia for knowledge, but with all the vandalism going on I'm getting more random crap than useful information, and seeing the talk pages on pages like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington is like watching a never-ending documentary.

Wikipedia isn't serious anymore in my opinion, you're a smart person, and you're actually the only friend on Wikipedia I had true discussions with besides editing. So goodbye, it's time to leave before I get even further brainwashed by Wikipedia vandalism, it's bad enough to get brainwashed by television, movies and so on, I shouldn't be brainwashed by stupid remarks that can be found in vandalism.

I will miss you, Erik, you're truly a great guy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't leave. Seriously Wikipedia is not a good place but they are great people like for example Steve, Alien, Erik and few others and there is lot more information you can learn besides articles. :). --SkyWalker (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No I don't belong to this place. Cleaning up vandalism gives your brains too many immature thoughts, so I have to go. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Immature thoughts"?. I think cleaning up vandalism is fun :D. Plus knowing more about wiki is even more interesting. Come on Blaziken no second thoughts?. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it is fun. And that's the main problem, it's so fun my mind gets so focused on that I can't even concentrate. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You should train your mind so that you don't get let it go. That is something i can't do any but you should. Iam glad you are staying. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made up my mind and I'm staying.

But I can't trust this site entirely, most news reporters live in a fantasy world, but instead of watching everything I want, I will only keep an eye on pages I wanna know more about at the moment. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits with comments like "I'd fuck Lincoln in the ass!!!!", that's what brainwashed my mind. And unfortunately this world has too much freedom, the media even makes tricks that is totally impossible to explain logically. I know it has a change of getting right, and from now on I will not watch every movie I see the trailer of, instead I will try to see movies that look serious. Of course you cannot 100% guarantee the movie is sex free, and you can't know for sure if it is boring or ridiculous without getting the movie spoiled. The world is full of random things, and fictional characters finally stay on the screens where they belong, and not in my mind. I don't know why, but for some reason I feel like I'm cured from brainwashing. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Some issues about WP news.

How can I avoid getting spam on my Wikipedia talk page? I hate the coordinator of the week program. Just because I'm a member of a WikiProject does not mean I'm interested in everything that's happening. Help would be really appreciated. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a good user page on Wikipedia that looks decent and not boring or totally ridiculous. Can you perhaps help me by asking me questions regarding the userboxes I used to have? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it and maybe it's best if I stay away from the United States. From what I've heard you get arrested for the most ridiculous reasons, maybe I should just stay in Iceland until the States are no longer the leader of everything we know. By the way could you help me with achieving? You can't trust a bot, and achieving can be very frustrating. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The movie I'm about to watch next halloween could make it crappier than last year.

You are a movie researcher, and you know a lot about movies. That's why I'm asking for your help, the media told me that this is the movie that will get Halloween to be how it should be. But last year, I watched this movie BEFORE Halloween and this one on Halloween, I hated that movie, it was the reason Halloween last year was one of the crappiest Halloweens I ever had. (I can't remember any crappy Halloween when I was a kid, as I just got really open to the United States on my teen years)

Please help me out, I want the Halloween to turn out great, not crappy, and without your help, I could as well be watching a movie that sucks so bad I will regret it for the rest of my life. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

P. S. If you happen to know the best article for teen years do me a favor and change the redirect. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another problem, if I watch DVDs it will most likely turn out to be the lightest Halloween I will ever experience. Scratch that, I will just watch the movie, a real party isn't needed in order to make a holiday valid. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bride Service (film)

Could you take a look at the AfD (a short one) and then tell me what your thoughts are on List of Timothy Asch films? I borrowed the "list from the Timothy Asch article, and then borrowed the content and sourcing from the 14 films on that list that already had their own seperate article. I certainly do not recommend this for other such lists, but in this case, the 14 other articles were quite stubby, and including their informations on one page made a lot of sense. My own thought is that those 14 other articles may be deleeted and set as redirects to the list or to Asch. If, however unlikley, one of the other films gets enough additiional information or coverage to grow bigger than waht bits were there, we might then consider giving it its own article. Your opinion would be most appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Films to be released in..." categories

I've whipped up a template to provide a generic text description for these categories. Just add {{WPFILMS Future-Class films to be released category header}} and use the single parameter to specify either the year or month & year. Transclude rather than subst, so the text can be easily be edited. Regards. PC78 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, nothing wrong with temporary categories such as these. Once the date has passed and the category been cleaned out, it should be eligible for speedy deletion. PC78 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

...As I understand it, these categories should empty themselves. Once the specified date passess, an article should get transferred to Category:Released Future-Class films. PC78 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the updating of WP:FUTFILM has been a little neglected lately; for me it's simply been a matter of prioritising other tasks ahead of cleanup operations. Though it's good to see other editors, ones who I've never seen at WT:FILM, using WP:NFF in their AfDs, it shows it has the broad support of the community. I'd definitely be up for helping to create an essay based on all the arguments we've used/seen at these AfDs. I'll pull something together over the weekend if you want. Steve ^{T • C} 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Good Sir!

Thank you, good sir, for removing the god-awful plot summary from the RocknRolla page. I salute your contribution. Plot summaries are generally a miserable waste of space. Some guy (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

I got all sorts of nagging minor things I need advise on:

• If you see Quantum of Solace (soundtrack), you see what's been written about the film's composition has been placed with infobox, track listing etc. I'm curious, do you think I should really siphon off soundtrack info from now on into soundtrack articles?
• Watchmen mentions its R rating in the lead; out of good faith I haven't removed it, but it just seems so obvious and trivial, regardless whether this is the first non-Vertigo DC film to be rated R.
• Shall we give Spielberg until Christmas to shoot Tintin before merging it?
• Not article related: did Hulk smash? Alientraveller (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just assumed they would ask Ross if he couldn't use the Hulk to create supersoldiers, then just stick with the original and try to induct him. All this talk about the Hulk being an antagonist; I suppose he'll initially be an unwilling member before he realises what they're up against (that's the big question in my opinion, the Avengers villain; full-on Mandarin? Red Skull? Loki? Ultron and the Leader can wait for solo films). Or maybe he's offering help to capture Hulk now Abomination is safely contained in what I presume is a supervillain prison.

I think Marvel wants Cap to be out in 2011 because that is his sixtieth anniversary, and I suppose the studio hopes Obama will be president and so the international market will be better. Zachary Quinto said people will be more receptive to Star Trek's optimism once he's in power. Switching gears before I soapbox, will people want to see Cap if there's another film with him out by the end of that summer with Hulk, Iron Man and Thor?! Alientraveller (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the Samson conversation is a deleted scene. It's ok, Samson kinda admits he's jealous of Bruce. Alientraveller (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So was Dr. Jones' encounter with the extraterrestrial as impressive as his ones with the holy? Alientraveller (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I loved the nuking scene because it just seemed so bewildering Indiana, a man of experience, has to witness something so foolish, so wasteful a piece of science. I guess the jungle chase was a bit long, but they were trying to make up for the hour or so of exposition in the middle (only real criticism of it I have, there's so many fascinating concepts in the story but it has to maintain the adventure feel).

Where would you like to see Indy go next? Part of me is looking to Star Trek to see whether an iconic role can be recast the role once Ford is too old. I always wonder if Lucas and Spielberg would revisit their original concept for the second film, which was a Conan Doyle lost world in Asia, especially since this is the 1950s and Japan had their Godzillas. How about a little cross-breeding with Jurassic Park now we've had aliens, eh? Alientraveller (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Psst. I saw that edit to Fight Club yesterday, and was going to revert, but on a whim I checked the scene and Pitt does indeed say "shirts". The cited article says differently, I assume? Tsk, that's The Mail on Sunday for ya. Steve ^{T • C} 08:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. I've just tried it in preview and it seemed odd there. The flow to me is "here's the surface reaction, now here's the deeper reading". But maybe that's just me. Would you put it before or after "Release"? Steve ^{T • C} 18:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried your suggestion; I agree with the section title, but I'm still wavering on the placement of it. With how large it is, it seems like a... a hill to climb, on the way to the section that I would guess a lot of readers would rather scroll down to. Or maybe it's just because I'm not used to seeing them in film articles. Incidentally, I've been reviewing Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan at FAC, and other than some minor issues that can be sorted in half a dozen edits, I'm leaning towards a support. The only thing that's stopping me really is the issue of comprehensiveness. Several sections seem a little light on content (especially the filming section), not as detailed as I'd expect for a film that's entered the popular conciousness as much as this has. Now, it is an older film, so it may be that the sources simply aren't available, in which case fair enough. But just to be sure, I've done my own rudimentary searches yesterday and today, and I'm struggling to find anything of note. Before I head back over there, I was just wondering (and only if you have the time to check easily, I don't want to put you out) is there anything promising-looking listed at the places you have access to? Many thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 21:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So, now it's done with, who did you vote for? Alientraveller (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism???

How was my edit to the article Quantum of Solace vandalism? I was posting an opinion that many film critics expressed regarding the length and quality of the film.Alex250P (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but don't you agree that there should be something on there with critics saying it was a slight dissapointment and not better than Casino Royale?Alex250P (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

C-class articles opinion needed

Hi there. We at WP:INDIA are debating the introduction of C-class articles for our assessment. I recall that you participated in the proposal to implement C-class at another project. Would you mind weighing in at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#C class articles? I'd appreciate it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibility

I didn't say he was going to achieve any of this, but we don't elect people for what they do, but what they claim they will do. I doubt he'd get Congress to pass the nuke idea, but then again, I doubted Florida was going to pass Amendment 2. The same goes for the abortion thing. The problem with both candidates is that they are both taking an extreme side. One wants to tax us to get us better plans, the other wants the government to take control. There needs to be a middle ground. First and foremost, Medicaid and Medicare need to be revamped and better taken care of. They're good plans, but people just don't take them because the gov. doesn't want to pay more than $.60 on the dollar. That's crap compared to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the other private health companies. I think the difference between health care and police/fire/rescue/etc is that there is no "plan" with the police. People don't receive a certain level of protection from them, it's full on protection. An officer must protect you outright no matter what (freak circumstances notwithstanding). With health care, you're talking about an open market of business. The police don't make money for saving you, they're paid to do a civic duty. Doctors are trying to make money. I think the problem with McCain's campaign was primarily funding. I couldn't be on a TV channel without seeing at least 3 Obama commercials within a two our period. I didn't see a single McCain (or Republican) promo until a couple of days before Tuesday. You cannot compete with that type of funding, it's almost impossible. I was very disappointed with both candidates mudslinging (but I find that disheartening every election...one would think we would get past such childish campaign agendas). I think McCain started out very strong, but I think the funding went and after that he basically threw everything else out the window (including any ethics and morals he might have stated the election campaign with). Unfortunately, I feel like people voted for Obama because he was black and not because of his actual platform. That doesn't mean he couldn't turn out to be a good president, but it says more about the American people that we rarely look at who the candidate really is and what they will try to do while in office. I wait in anticipation for the day when the people start really looking at the candidates instead of simply voting from the hip by voting party or voting color or whatever other singled reasoning has or will be done in the future (to me, that will only be done when we can get ride of this "party" system and force candidate to be individuals).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your assessment of the two parties is rather accurate, and one of the reasons why I don't like them. Health is an open market, and I wish it didn't treat people as shitty as it does. People should be able to make a living, no matter how great of a living, but they shouldn't burn society in the process. I understand why they don't take pre-existing conditions, but I think that even though the system is an open market they should be bound by some sort of ethical guidelines (like all other civil servants, wither theire for profit or not). If they have a pre-existing condition that that should not prevent them from at least being granted some kind of respite from life. Just because I'm going to die from cancer doesn't mean that I want to do it in agony, and no one should be forced to live that way. I think there is a more blended line that could be created between gov. run health care and private insurance.

But look at the country. The "white" population barely outnumbers all of the minority populations together. It's like that old high school idea that the unpopular kids generally outnumber the "popular" ones. It's more about who demonstrates their power the best. The "popular" ones know know how to take hold of a situation and force it in their favor, while the unpopular ones tend to get the rug pulled out from under them each time until someone comes along to be that guiding light. That was where Obama came in (and I don't mean to discredit his election, because he did steal a lot of the "white" vote and the Republican states); he organized the minority (regardless of whether they truly knew and agreed with his politics) into a cohesive force. So, in all fairness, that is the makings of a person with good leadership skills. What we have yet to see is whether he will be a "good leader".

Personally, I don't like the amendment that limits the terms. Not only do I feel like we need just the popular vote, and lack of this bipartisan system to fuel are more society approved President, but if society feels like they are doing a good job taking care of the country for the past 8 years, why should they be forced out and potentially have someone else corrupt and ruin whatever was accomplished? Plus, most things cannot be accomplished in a couple of years, it takes time for real change to occur.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oil on troubled water, or gasoline on a fire?

Hi Erik. I noticed your comment here. I feel it is possibly unfair and probably unhelpful for you to judge that Ed and I are both "guilty"; this is not a court of law. Lar's comments are aimed at improving the article, and it would be great if you could focus also on this. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not a court of law, that's why I used quotation marks. :) I was hoping to just say, "It hasn't been one-sided, but discussion has been working out. Let's keep concerns private unless it becomes serious." If you note, up to this point, my contributions to the discussion has been focused on the content with this mild sidestep. Been a little too busy lately to participate in what's been going on the past few days, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. I am thick-skinned enough, up to a point, to ignore Ed's ad homs and that has been my policy up until now. I am increasingly concerned though that the personalization of this dispute has held back constructive discussion. Ed crossed a line when he queried what I meant by "encyclopedic purpose"; nobody should be editing here long-term without realizing we are here to build an encyclopedia. --John (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I am killing time at a friend's in Chicago since he is very sound asleep. I think both of you are opperating on different wavelengths; I don't see your example as crossing the line. I think that it is more topical than you may realize; there have always been ongoing community discussions about what construes encyclopedic additions when it comes to plot details or references in popular culture. At its core, it is about editors determining what readers are interested in knowing about a topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas

Hi Erik! When you made your argument, you noted that it was solely plot detail and no real-world context. I have since and am still making serious revisions to the article, essentially cutting anything that I cannot reference and adding out of universe information that I can cite with books. I think the marketing and reception sections show promise and would probably move/rename the article to Characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas or something to that effect. Anyway, due to my ongoing efforts to radically revise the article so that it has cited, out of universe comments, any chance you might reconsider, even if it's for a merge or redirect instead? Anyway, thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an open mind. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Any particular reason for writing them out as opposed to the ISO-whatever format? Oh, and how does this strike you? Steve ^{T • C} 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; sounds like a good reason to me. If only you guys over there could stick with the far more logical way that we do it (dd/mm/yyyy). Steve ^{T • C} 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

I've bought myself an issue of Cinefex. If you want, next week I'll be able to use my school computer to scan and upload an image of Aaron Eckhart with laser markers and skullcap on set, with a proper CG shot of Two-Face.

I've been thinking of a guideline to implement in WP:MOSFILM (Lord knows that page is big enough now though) for resources on production. So from easiest to access, most comprehensive and reliable to not, we can mention things like DVDs, books, production notes; the archives in Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Time, NYT, Variety, and American Cinematographer; notable fansites; expensive subscribers' stuff like Cinfex, THR, LAT; and the print articles random people may have in their house (eg. Empire). It would be useful for casual editors like me who have enough of a hard time navigating an online archive to even think about investigating the slurry of Google News. Alientraveller (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote up a brief list in my main sandbox (the second one). You can build upon there without having to add the WikiProject template or cats just yet. Alientraveller (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great for an Offline articles section, though I think the example could be more specific than Paul Newman. I once used Google News to find an interview with Gloria Stuart that confirmed old Rose died at the end of Titanic: I just typed in "did old rose die at the end of titanic?" Official tie-in material will need separate sections because they're always broadly comprehensive, like I said this is about giving people pointers, not if they want to write FAs. Alientraveller (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and about Watchmen, I'll reserve judgement of course when I see the film, but I've seen worse changes in great movies. My only regret is Neville Page was unable to work on delicious nightmare like Ozymandias' creation. Alientraveller (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good on you for advising me to reword that 'emotional' quote from Abrams. I don't doubt he chose to direct on account of that (Bana did it too because of the script, not because he just liked the show as a kid), but someone already criticised me for making the article a "fan page". For the record though, the trailer is currently on loop on my PC. Alientraveller (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi

User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I think my question at [1] may have been overlooked as other subjects were added, so perhaps you won't mind if I repeat it here. Excuse my apparent stupidity, but what does the phrase "Start Date," as used in this discussion, mean? Is it a reference to the date filming began? The date the film opened? Something else completely? Thanks for the clarification. LiteraryMaven (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Heya

Does this mean the Imdb topic should be re-examined? How does one even re-initialize the topic? He's interpreting the lack of consensus as carte blanche to mean that Imdb is perfectly fine to use as a shiny perfect source for citations. Homey don't play that.
So, how are classes? Have any internships lined up? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Yeah, I took the Film infobox off my watchlist because I got tired of his repetative comments about how IMDb is such a great source. Ironically, I wouldn't be able to cite that in any real paper I would write for school. IMO, it's over anyway, because the Admin came and removed the coding. There hasn't been this public outcry that people were claiming there would be. I have looked at some of those older FAs, as well as a few FAs that passed a few months ago, and I was actually slightly appalled that they passed. 300 is a rather small article for a film that was so much in the public eye. I think that there is such a push to get articles (especially film and television) into FA status that we've been lax on a lot of our mores, as far as FA standards goes.

Anyway, I've been working in my sandboxes trying to finish up old work. I've almost completed all of the production info from the original Friday the 13th page. Other than that, I've been working to get all those Smallville related articles up to atleast GA status. There just haven't been any new/upcoming films that have peaked my interest as far as editing goes. I think that if I ever finish this backlog of articles then I'll probably start focusing on the new stuff again. Right now, the only "new" stuff I have is the upcoming Friday the 13th remake. Horror gets such little attention that I tend to devote most of my time to that, and the just as inattentive Smallville articles. I haven't forgot that we still have to finish Batman Begins and get that up to FA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I can agree, that there should really be a time limit to an article's life before even thinking about FA. On the other hand, should every film article be Fight Club, or whichever? I believe it was Awadewit (sp) that wanted it mandatory that every FA film article have a themes section, as, in his eyes, every film has themes and thus if no one talks about those themes then the article is "not comprehensive" and shouldn't be FA. I don't agree with that entirely. I think there are some films that really aren't trying to create themes, and no one sees any in them, but that shouldn't stop someone from creating a comprehensive FA film article based on the literature that has been written (granted of course that the film isn't 4 months old and enough time has actually been given to it to clearly say, "no one is writing about this film"). Should we have to wait 5, 10, 30 years before we promote a film to FA?

The thing with the Friday the 13th pages is that I have those two books and it just takes a long time to (re)plow through all the information and find relevent stuff. Jason was easy, because it is much easier to locate "Jason" related info in thos books and then remove irrelant stuff. With the films, entire chapters are devoted just to a film and you have to weed through it all. My problem initially was that I started with the book that didn't break down each person's response into its own section (the Peter Bracke Crystal Lake Memories does that). It would have been much easier to start with Bracke, and pick and choose what was relevant through the mini-sections, than read the entire chapter of David Grove's book (which also mixes and matches timelines in the filming process). It's a mistake I'll learn from with the next film page.

Smallville is actually doing quite well this season. Ratings are up, and I was surprised to find them delivering rather strong episodes each week - I was worried at the start of the season. As much as I hated the idea of introducing Doomsday, I do like the backstory they are giving him (it's original, but at the same time follows the basic idea of what his backstory was in the comics). The episode for this Thursday will show the the actual comic book look for the character, so I'm intrigued to find out how well they're going to pull off the prosthetics - it's hard to really tell in the trailer. Clark is really coming into his role as "Superman" (though, he doens't have the name, tights, or the ability to fly yet). He's really proactive this season, and doesn't buckle under the pressure like he used to do whenever someone confronts him when he's protecting his secret. There was a poignant moment in the last episode where Clark finally called Jor-El "Father". Also, the Clark/Lois relationship is really ratcheting up this season. You see that the two deeply care for each other, but are too afraid to admit it to the other person. All in all, it's been a good season. The next episode will be the last until after the winter break, so here's hoping it's got a good winter cliffhanger. I wait for the DVD of Heroes. I haven't even watched season two yet (too annoyed that it's full price for 9 episodes). Fringe looks stupid, so I never bothered watching it. My friend told me the acting wasn't particularly all that good anyway. The only "cop" related show that I watch is The Shield, which is sadly going to end this season (per their request, and not a cancellation from the network, which is the best way to go out).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend The Unit, if you are looking for some good tv to watch, Big. I also like the nice mix of absurdity and legal punditry of Boston Legal, but then, I've like James Spader since Tuff Turf. It might not matter to Erik, but the music in Life is pretty good, for a police procedural.

I have agree with you on Smallville. It has gotten better. I found the Green Arrow thing dreadfully boring, as I am guessing most comic fans do. The flying thing for Clark is going to be the exclamation point of the series, I think. I've said it before, about a year or two ago, I think, that when Clark leaves Smallville behind, it is a metaphorical weight that leaves his shoulders, and will fly away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's both the film infobox and the citeimdb page off my watchlist. I don't need to waste my time talking to myself, as it's apparent that's what I'm actually doing in all those debates with Termer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with any requirement that because of what could appear, a film has to have been out for [X years] before its article can be featured. Featured status doesn't mean it's finished, or that significant material is unlikely to be added at some point in the future. My own reading of the comprehensiveness requirement is this: 1) Is the article as comprehensive as it can be at this time? And 2) Is there a sense that significant material likely to enhance the article will come to light soon? If the answer is 1) yes, and 2) no, then I'd be happy with an article's promotion. What that means will differ from film to film, but with something like Transformers (film), which AT took to FA in double-quick time, I would define "soon" as waiting until after the DVD comes out and has been mined for information (which it was). Even though when the second and third films are released there is likely to be at least some retrospective commentary. With a film that perhaps lends itself to a deeper reading, such as There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men, it may take years before what was written at the time of their release even begins to be added to in academic journals and the like. New commentary appears all the time for films that are decades old, so I don't think we should bar either of those from promotion because of what might appear.

p.s. If you haven't tried it already, Mad Men is a real grower. Very occasional lapses into heavy-handed symbolism aside, it's subtle, layered and superbly acted. Steve ^{T • C} 09:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we might be approaching our coverage from the wrong angle? This is an encyclopaedia after all, not Sight & Sound. What encyclopaedia goes into such depth on a film's themes as we seem to be demanding? Is it self-indulgent to write unwieldy Themes sections that any serious student of film would find wanting? Maybe Wikipedia is the wrong place for all this and we should instead limit our analysis to a mere mention ("The film was perceived to have explored themes such as honour, loyalty and the price of bread") without going into any real depth. I might not necessarily agree with that, but: Discuss! I think the misogyny in Mad Men is perfectly acceptable if only because you're not supposed to like these characters (well, too much), even Don Draper. That has put a distance between the character and some viewers I know, but for me there's a depth to the writing unlike anything else on television right now that keeps me utterly fascinated. Steve ^{T • C} 15:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly did that essay conclude? You know how pea-brained I am Erik, not that that reviewer made errors him/herself (Megatron crashed through that building, not 'Screamer, and Bay emphasises the Autobots are as human as us at least). Ironically, Michael Bay hates Dubya. Alientraveller (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fortress (film) move proposal

Hi, Erik, just popping in from WP:RM. You recently proposed to move Fortress (1993 film) to Fortress (film), with the justification that there is no other film with the same title on Wikipedia. I've found Fortress (1986 film), which invalidates your claim that the 1993 film is the only one. Do you intend to demonstrate the 1993 film is more notable (and therefore has primacy to the plain "(film)" title), or would you prefer I delist the proposal? I have no preference one way or the other, I'm just trying to work through the requests at WP:RM and move pages where they need to be moved, and thought that contacting you directly would help expedite the conclusion this specific proposal. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good. If the redirect doesn't already point there, I'll fix it. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this and this...

...please note that I have begun as in still working on the process of adding references from published books (see [2] and [3]). Surely this is enough to show either potential or at least justification for a merge and rediect? Please reconsider so that we can continue these efforts to improve the article. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pride and Glory or Body of Lies?

I want to see both those movies, but the problem is I don't have enough time to see both of them, and was wondering if you could help me decide. Which one of those would you recommend? I have problems deciding which one I should see on the big screen and which one I should wait for until it comes on DVD. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that low ratings on Rotten Tomatoes means the movie most likely sucks? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I've made up my mind, and my choice is neither, because I got a birthday going on next Wednesday, I won't have the time to watch either of them anyway. I will be 20 by the way, and making the perfect party is extremely hard, so I wouldn't be able to focus my mind on the party. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD opinion

Do you think it would be unreasonable to put most of what's on Category:Videos and DVDs up for AfD? There are a couple of exceptions, but most of it seems to be pages for boxsets. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT

On DRV, you said: "Many of the keep arguments were not grounded in policies and guidelines and tended to shrug off WP:PLOT, which insists on a plot summary in the context of real-world context." How do you suppose this is accomplished? Plots are by nature in-universe and I don't see how sort of plot summary well-written or not could be put in real-world context. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving this site.

Sorry but I've just had it with fictional things being treated like they don't exist. I don't wanna leave, but I've feeling that I have to if the merging mess doesn't get fixed. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Access My Library

The "subscription" is free and available to any user. I had just done so myself a few moments ago so I could verify the contents of the sources... as can anyone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all were "subscription" based, yet you swept them all off of the article with the same brush. And if something is available at a library, does that disqualify it because one is not at the library? I believe it wil be best for me to simply cite the dates, publications, and titles per Wikipedia:Citing sources and let the readers figure out how to find the sources themselves. Thank you for the clarification. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we were bumpng edits. I was trying to post additional when I saw that they were all removed. Tell me if [4]Dallas Morning News, October 6 2005, is coming through to you as subscription. Maybe I have to sign back out of AML. And how can I expand the article if no one is allowed to read the sources? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just spent time at Alfred_Hitchcock filmography#Masterpiece Collection. You're right. The stub article should be merged/rediredted to the much more comprehensive article. I have changed my opinion at the AfD accordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fight Club

No, it was an online only poll. Empire also did a sexiest film stars poll recently, which was only published online. Alientraveller (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for a non-Empire news source to cite for the info. No luck yet, but I did run across this woefully-researched piece straight from Murdoch's fetid newsteat. Steve ^{T • C} 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, that's a separate poll from last month. Sigh. Steve ^{T • C} 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that raises an interesting point. If that poll (which omits Tyler Durden from the top five) was from the Australian edition of Empire, and we're catering to all majority English-speaking countries, that would lend itself to supporting the position that we should be saying "readers of UK film magazine Empire voted..." (I noticed you removed a similar statement preceding Total Film, which is why I mention this). Steve ^{T • C} 17:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion

Greetings. I know you work hard maintaining the various film articles, so I turn to you...and one or two others... for advice and/or an opinion on an extremely long ongoing discussion over on the WALL-E article's talk page. In a nutshell, there are a few editors who feel that one minor character (who is on-screen for maybe a minute at most) needs to be described as looking similar to another character, yet not one other character has a physical description listed in the article, including the main characters or other non-background-only minor characters. In full disclosure, my stance is of the description being unnecessary for article comprehension. I didn't see anything specific in MOS:FILM that addresses this specific point. Would you mind taking a few minutes (or more, we've been rather wordy) and share what you think? Thank you. SpikeJones (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

Thank you for writing the newsletter, I really appreciate it. I was actually going to get to it tonight, but I guess I should have told someone. My classes have been really time-consuming right now, but it should be over in a few weeks once I graduate. I'm going to make a few minor updates and then I'll send it out using AWB, which shouldn't take too long (sometimes I like to beat Cbrown1023's bot to the punch). Anyway, thanks again for your hard work and let me know if you need help with anything. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Film Posters

Gotcha. No problem. And thanks for the heads up.... :-) (Quentin X (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Film reels

OK I've been a good bald guy and searched for and uploaded some film reels which could probably replace our existing cartoon type icons. Take your pick from the following. I'll propose it to WP:Films so we can reach a consensus on which to use. Count Blofeld 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• File:Filmreel3.jpg

GA reviews

Please use the template next time to review articles for GAN. There is a link in the template on article talk pages to start the review process. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep please do that. The reason that we prefer the review on a separate page is for editors to review past GA reviews more easily. Gary King (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good Gary King (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Milk

I just wanted to say that the way you handled the situation, especially at the end, was great. I think that where the link is now is precisely where it always should have been, and I was just too stubborn to have tried something different from the start. Brand Eks (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: How to Lose friends & Alienate People

Hey Erik, I am not sure why the link I added for How to Lose friends & Alienate People was against any kind of posting guidelines... I gave the link external linking guide a thorough read and consider it match all 4 of the points under "What should be linked". Could you please outline why this link was removed? If IMDb, Metacritic, Rotten Tomato's etc... can be there, I am more than certain TMDb can be too.Travisbell (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Question answered at User talk:EVula#Re: Fight Club. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bolt (film)

1. Do you agree that the phrase "Bolt (film)" realistically could only refer to the two films entitled "Bolt," both of which appear below many other uses on the disambiguation page? If so, whom do you believe you're helping by forcing people to read through numerous irrelevant meanings (instead of directing them to the more likely of the two targets, which links directly to the less likely target right at the top).
2. Did you check the list of incoming links? —David Levy 19:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How about treating Bolt (film) as a disambiguation page? I'd be happy to clean up the Disney-related links to point to Bolt (2008 film). —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That would eliminate the irrelevant links, but it still wouldn't provide any benefit over the redirect and hatnote. It would merely add an extra navigational step for the vast majority of people arriving at the page.

Without deeming either film "more important," it's obvious that the 2008 film is much better known. So most people typing "Bolt (film)" seek the article about the 2008 film, and the current setup brings them directly to it. Those who seek the article about the 1994 film are asked to follow a link, just as they would be on a disambiguation page. So switching to a disambiguation page would negatively affect the majority (who would have to follow an additional link) without helping the minority (who must follow a link either way). This is why two-article disambiguation pages rarely are a good idea (even when the two connotations are equally popular, which clearly isn't the case here). —David Levy 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The assumption that the article will get the majority of traffic is based on recentism. In ten years, both film articles' traffic will likely parallel each other. I'm just an advocate of structuring articles and links for a "timeless" effect. It's more objective, and I don't think that the argument of enduring an extra click offsets an imbalance based on recent popularity. It's my proposed solution to avoid the lengthier disambiguation page but still present a balance. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your prediction that the two articles will be equally in demand ten years from now. By objective criteria, the 1994 film is relatively obscure and likely to remain so, while the 2008 film has achieved mainstream success and popularity. Our naming conventions dictate not that we strike "a balance," but that we rely on common usage to determine what navigational setup is most convenient for readers.

As I said, however, even if the two films were equally likely search targets, the redirect/hatnote solution (which would bring 50% of readers to their desired article and require 50% to follow a link) still would be preferable to a two-article disambiguation page (which would require everyone to follow a link, thereby benefiting no one). —David Levy 19:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that Bolt (film) redirects to Bolt (2008 film). Advocating the redirect seems to me to suggest that Bolt (2008 film) should really be at Bolt (film) because of its mainstream success and popularity. Since the 2008 film is not at all a primary topic, this kind of implication is why I prefer the objective approach. Another solution is to redirect to Bolt#Other meanings, and I would be happy to clean up all Bolt (film) wiki-links meant for the 2008 film to point to Bolt (2008 film). —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the 2008 movie is the primary topic for "Bolt (film)" (though obviously not for "Bolt" on its own). Its title has been changed several times. Most recently, it resided at Bolt (film) from my move on 9 April until your move to Bolt (2008 film) on 26 November.

Your latter suggestion carries the same problem as a two-article disambiguation page. —David Levy 21:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thought is that the 1994 film may not be notable under Wikipedia's standards, so if this can be explored, maybe Bolt (2008 film) can wind up at Bolt (film) anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. —David Levy 21:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Treasure Planet

Oh wow, thank you so much for the advice! Like I told Nehrams2020, I've been doing a solo flight on the Treasure Planet article for the longest time, and I'm happy to finally hear advice from other editors! I'll get started on the improvements that you pointed out, though I'm not too sure about finding more info for the critical reaction section because I think I exhausted everything I could find so far. I'm also not too sure what to do with the "Differences from the novel" section because I don't think "Writing" will work for it at the moment...I'll try to find some more sources that talk about the writing for the film and see if I can add some more information. In the meantime, should I just merge it into the "Development" subheading? Or should I retain the "Differences from the novel" heading and just move it under the "Production" section? Please let me know what you think, and thanks again! --SilentAria ^talk 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I drafted a merged version of the "Differences from the novel" and the "Development" section, but I don't think the flow's working out. I think I'll just leave the section alone for the time being...at least until I find more sources that have information on the writing for the film. And thanks for letting me know about WT:FILM! I'll probably post something there later if I get stuck. :) --SilentAria ^talk 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Doomsday/Hancock Runtimes

An extended edition of a film with an added eight+minute extension is enough to warrant notification for viewer reference. If they weren't, they really wouldn't be listed as such at the back of the film's dvd. Which is why they're also included in IMDB and other sources. In Hancock's case, the unrated edition is nearly ten minutes longer than the theatrical version. They're very much notable.Beem2 (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The importance of the content in the extended version is irrelevant. There are several films on Wikipedia in which have their Theatrical & Unrated runtimes listed. Whether or not the extra content is of importance is ultimately up to the viewer/consumer to decide on their own.Beem2 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the intro. As I mention on my user page, I've actually been a contributor here for over three years now (albeit anonymously) but only recently decided to finally register an account. I've been making gnomish edits to film pages (mostly grammar fixes, cleanup, and updates to release dates) for about half a year now, and recall seeing you pop up in the history on many of the pages I've edited in the past. See you around. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Valkyrie

I kind of like to include the publisher field because the more info in the cite, the better, but no worries. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NBSP with dates

Wouldn't it be best to alter the WP:CIT templates so that this is done in there, with 2008-12-11 as the default type of style for inputting dates? Would make things easier by default/standardization in the future... Cirt (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You make some very good points, which I do not disagree with in the slightest. Cirt (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Erik, when you click 'undo', do you wind up being given the option to cut and paste the whole article again? Alientraveller (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Evil Dude VS Darrenhusted

Hi Erik, let me answer thematically:

I am of the personal belief that all 23 Eon Bond films should be listed together, but some may argue that there are enough people who consider the Craig films a separate franchise than the 20 others to list them as separate. Bond 23 might not be as direct a continutation of 22 as 22 was of 21 but there's no denying they are part of the same franchise. When Bond 23 comes out and Bond 24 is getting made, then the "new" Bond franchise should go into tetralogy.

Can you honestly tell me that you believe it is not "set in stone" that a new Batman film is made following The Dark Knight? It will happen, with or without Nolan, and will follow in the footsteps of The Dark Knight, thus being part of the same Batman chronology. Finally Christian Bale is contractually obligated to do another Batman movie, so unless he dies or pays Warner Bros a shitload of compensation money, there will be a third Batman movie with him.

My main beef however wasn't with either Batman or Bond (Batman is already a trilogy btw with Batman: Gotham Knight in the middle). Rather Darrenhusted deleting xXx 3, Ghostbusters 3, Iron Man 2, etc and having the gall to proclaim that these films are just wishful thinking by fanboys and that they haven't been written or aren't planned by the makers, production companies etc... Completely ridiculous. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Erik, the reason I'm not "assuming good faith" is simply because, well, I'm not. It seems to me like Darrenhusted is making it his mission to delete every entry I make into the film series section simply based on his own preference and not on whether the ovies I add exist and belong together or not (they do). For example, he removed Saw from the hexology section, Batman 2005 (Batman Begins/Batman: Gotham Knight/The Dark Knight), Riddick (Pitch Black/Dark Fury/Chronicles Of Riddick) and Scooby-Doo (1/Monsters Unleashed/In The Beginning) among others from the trilogy section, etc... As for what you've been telling me, I find it comical and sad at the same time that you kept talking about Batman whereas I said that Batman was the least of the issues in my mind. You keep asking "what makes a trilogy"? Three films make a trilogy, pure and simple. If a fourth film is made, then it becomes a tetralogy, and so on... "Wikipedia needs to report information as published elsewhere" => it is because the information is published elsewhere that I write what I write. On saying that there are probably more than one new film in store in the new Batman franchise, of course that's more than likely, but only one is being written at the moment and nothing will stop it from happening thus it belongs in the tetralogy section. When the new one comes out and another is announced, then it should be moved to pentalogy. It's simple... This whole issue just keeps reminding me of why I'd become disgusted with editing Wikipedia a little less then a year ago when I kept adding Indiana Jones under tetralogy and people like you kept deleting it... Sheesh.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Tropic Thunder A-class review

Thanks for adding more comments and taking the time to look through the entire article. I've addressed several of your points and will be getting to the rest this weekend after I have my final on Saturday. Once I finish addressing all of your points I'll send you another message. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I finished addressing your points, whenever you're ready to take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing in the run-up to Christmas

Erik, I've been really busy with all my holiday shopping so all I can do right now is flick vandalism and make to the point talk page comments. I could hardly care less right now whether people want to create a disambiguation page for two films with the same title (The Day the Earth Stood Still) or put Quantum of Solace at (film). But now we're all being forced to deal with Inclusionist (real conflict of interest there) who wants to abolish WP:FUTFILMS just so he/she can have an article for the third Narnia film.

I hope you're doing well this time: me, I'm realising Christmas is very stressful now I'm grown up. And to be honest Erik, I really wonder why I write these articles on future films, when I look at forums all the time, and just realise how really cynical and shallow most film fans and critics are. They don't even bother reading our work, claiming we're unreliable (despite our citations) and just how stupid they are when they think Jurassic Park IV was getting made. And for what? So people still think Edward Norton fell out with Marvel although it was actually the media who forced the annoyed actor not do press? I'm sick of reading cites where interviewers keep asking Stanton if WALL-E was intentionally a pro-environmental film (anyone heard of intentional fallacy?) for their readers, as if they don't read other papers. I get what Spielberg means when he sees movies late each year and wonders what everyone whinges about, but that cynicism unfortunately affects me when I see "mixed" reviews and I'm like, 'why do I still bother' if people don't get what the majority of intelligent craftsmen in the film business aim for, and call them unoriginal despite coming up with great concepts each year (aliens in Indiana Jones; way to whine about originality).

Excuse me if I'm turning into a grumpy old man, and my mood will settle once the Christmas spirit arrives. I mean, it's the only time religion seems to be embraced by the whole media, which is nice. I generally see God as being a fact for me and my relationship with him is very unspiritual. Just be nice you know, and try to make this universe from the infinite ones He created not turn out to be the negative ones. Anyway, how you been? Alientraveller (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My Christmasses are always with my family at home, with the extravagant meals and the television specials. As well as Doctor Who's "The Next Doctor", there's Wallace and Gromit in "A Matter of Loaf and Death". Should bring a :) As for lame internet comments by people on ComingSoon.net or The Times, I'm gonna make it my new year's resolution to never read them. Alientraveller (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, VOTTD has been in my sandbox for ages, so no need to advise anyone to userfy it. Alientraveller (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie and The Naked Brothers Band (TV series)

Hi User:Eric,
Steve is very busy this month and I asked him if he could improve some of The Naked Brothers Band articles and said when he gets the chance that he'll take a look at it.
So in the mean time, I was wondering if you could take a look at it as well.
It's a little messy and needs some work.
I did major work on it for a while, but still needs a lot more work.
I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to look in addition to Steve.
Thanx! ATC (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for I Not Stupid Too

Erik, thanks for participating in I Not Stupid Too's peer review. I addressed one of your concerns and requested clarification on several others. Could you please post follow-up comments, especially for your two concerns over referencing? Then I can quickly deal with those issues. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Future film tracking

Nice, I had seen the future attribute before but didn't know about the date tracking feature. I'll definitely keep those updated when I update release dates from now on. Out of curiousity though, for a new release, when does that "Future" class get swapped out for a regular class type? That example mentions sweeping through at the end of the month or year to re-assess the article, but I've seen them removed as early as a day before release for some films, which would obviously also remove them from this tracking list. Does "assess" here really only mean "look through and switch from future to present/past tense"? –Fierce Beaver (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Year of release

Just encountered a situation and was wondering if there was an existing convention here for how to classify a film's year when its theatrical release occurs in a different year than its first public screening. For instance, The Great Buck Howard was first publicly screened at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, but will not have a theatrical release until 2009. For the purpose of the intro, where many articles call out the year, and also the year categories, would this film be considered a 2008 film or a 2009 film? I know imdb classifies their dates based on first public performance, as does the Academy Awards eligibility rules (which is why there are typically so many limited releases of award contenders in late December). Do we do the same, or follow some other convention? –Fierce Beaver (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

School of Rock 2

Hello Erik, thanks for initiating a discussion. I have no strong feelings about this suggestion to merge the nascent sequel to the original movie. It looks like the current material originated there. The guideline may be a good one, but in this case there appears to be more advance press and attention than average. Good source material on a stub article for movies tends to attract writers, either dedicated writers or accretion by multiple writers but being part of a larger article tends to distract writers from adding material. For this reason, I would be disappointed if it was merged back. I would not oppose it but it seems like a reflexive adherence to a guideline rather than a thoughtful review of the material and its growth potential. Miami33139 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:RE: The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie and The Naked Brothers Band (TV series)

Remember about The Naked Brothers Band articles.
You told me I could nudge you about it so...
ATC (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Films

Hi. Thanks for contacting me. I guess I should say that my frustration isn't because coordinators add opinions overall on discussions. What my issue has been is that it seems that some tend to be dismissive of opinions/suggestions made by participants who aren't as active. In this particular case, I spent a few hours working up the example and the only reference that Girolamo Savonarola, who was replying directly to my posting, made to it at all was that he didn't like the splitting of wins and losses, then went right on to something else entirely, which really felt dismissive to me. It's not my first experience with that from him and it is why I rarely participate in discussions. The table I made is easily converted to contain all the nominations/wins into one table, perhaps grouping the wins first, followed by the nominations, and I honestly would like to see a bit of consistency between WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM. I recognize that the coordinators are the members who are most active, that is the reason I supported the nominations that I did last time. Having said that, however, I have seen situations where coordinator opinion does seem to carry more weight than others, except perhaps PC78. I can't speak for other editors, but my experience has been that often, the opinion of a new or rarely active editor is given less weight than the regulars, although not solely on WP:FILMS. It's not necessarily a spoken, or perhaps even a recognized, attitude. I ran across this earlier this week in discussions about images - a wall of sorts between the "us" and "them" where newcomers to dealing with licensing issues were discounted because they weren't savvy about all the issues complicating use of images. Rather than help with figuring out what was needed, the attitude was "you didn't provide it, so unless you do, it's going." I've been here close to 3 years, and yet there are areas that I don't work in much. It's frustrating to even old-timers. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I work with one or two others and we are the basic WP:ACTOR core who do the most. There is no defined coordination there, and that is admittedly a double edged thing. I work alone a lot, but there is cohesion between myself and the small group of others who are active. I'd rather have that than someone who is little interested in the group (which is a bit of an explanation of the original creators of WP:ACTOR). I was thinking fairly specifically of the tables topic about consistency. This is the currently recommended filmography table, which has been updated from an earlier version. Another editor and myself adapted it to use a separate but combined table for film/television work, and we've used other adaptations to table other jobs such as director, writer, producer. I've become fairly proficient in working with the style of it, finding the links for appropriate awards articles takes most of the time. I picked Shakespeare in Love most because I watched it again earlier in the week (I do love that film). I used the actor filmography table to adapt a number of related ones as the basis for the one I linked on the WP:FILMS talk page. I also adapted it this morning to a combined format here and added a status column. Essentially, these tables are easily adapted, mostly by simply changing row titles and numbers.

I think the etiquette guidelines should be across Wikipedia entirely, it seems to me that trying to create guidelines for individual projects would give rise to the same problems as US government - federal vs. state. What guidelines take precedent, project or WP? Who enforces them? Without the authority or responsibility to oversee and enforce guidelines on violations, there's little use for them. I'd support membership parameters for those who vote in coordinator nominations so a cabal of new members can't join to essentially hijack the project, for example. I think that's become an issue with the recent ArbCom committee election. If I misunderstood this part of your query, please let me know! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue with actor/filmmaker articles is being aware of WP:BLP and trying to properly source things. There are some exceptional biographies on actors, one of my favorite is Bette Davis, it's well written, comprehensive and interesting. The one I've done the most work on and can I'm fairly proud of it is Gene Wilder. I've wanted to work on Gilda Radner to accompany it, but honestly, when I start digging into history, I wind up crying! I made the combined Shakespeare in Love awards table, would it be preferable, do you think? I'll tinker with bolding the dividing lines between awards, I'm sure it's just a matter of a bold code. Or would simply bolding the different award names work (Academy Awards)? Take a look at the combined example, I bolded the award names. I'll change status to outcome, I was looking for a more defining word, but my sleep schedule sometimes causes me to have brain mud and couldn't come up with it.

I thought about the citations for awards issue, and maybe they would need to be, but I know that most awards have an article already with the listings, and are listed on IMDB. Yeah, I know the issues with IMDB, but I've rarely heard anyone say the awards listings aren't reliable. I've often thought that if an award doesn't merit a Wikipedia article then perhaps it isn't notable enough to include in a list. Fortunately that's rarely become an issue. The citations could be placed either in the name of the awards title, or could have their own column (I'm not keen on this), or with each award (overkill?).

I mentioned the WikiProject cabal takeover point mostly because I've been watching the ArbCom elections, and what has happened there is at least one, or perhaps two, standing ArbCom members who have stood for re-election have been targeted by a group to get rid of them. The elections there require a minimum number of main article edits for inclusion. I've not seen it done elsewhere to take over a project, but it's not an impossibility. I've become jaded recently, I think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

New

I didn't get back to you like I should have about the line between awards, but I'm glad to see you found it and I accomplished it. In that sort of format, I'm thinking a reference for each group of awards (Academy, Golden Globe, etc.) could be given at the main category, instead of having 6 Academy Award references, only one would be necessary. In almost all cases, I think awards could be referenced from one place. I'm ambivalent about using Academy Award for Best Director vs. Best Director, although in either case, each has its own WP article and should be linked that way.

Meanwhile, happily, I won a battle this weekend. I found the present source for the Charles Whitman images I mentioned, which was a library, and managed to obtain public domain release for them. I felt so vindicated on that!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Another editor who has also worked on the Whitman page happened to have (more recently) helped one of the police officers involved in the original tower shooting assault to stop Whitman and get some issues settled with the city of Austin. In the process of doing so, he acquired some copies of the original police investigation photos, while they were still in the custody of the police department. Later, the police donated the bulk of their files to the Austin History Center. This editor uploaded some of the photos, some which most people have never seen before, to be used on the Whitman article. The ownership was difficult to establish, since the Austin PD no longer owned them, but it wasn't clear if they were public domain. The editor who uploaded them thought they were PD, and licensed them that way, but that was hugely challenged by the image police here on WP. Between trying to get permission from the library for fair use or public domain, and holding off the hounds of deletion, it was quite an ordeal. I finally got in touch with the curator at the library, who graciously released them under creative commons so we can use them. Two of them were of his arsenal and one was actually a pretty great photo of Whitman before his decline (he had a malignant brain tumor to which they attributed his behavior): File:Whitman relaxed.jpg. Unfortunately, we couldn't get the license cleared on a photo of Whitman and his wife from their wedding before it was deleted. That may be next. I find that these last two photos add something that just can't be defined to the view the article gives of someone who is mostly seen as a spree killer. There's just something about it that gives a little balance. I feel like we had a major victory with those! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you'd clarify "revamping Awards and nominations", let me know what you're thinking and I might be able to help. If you're thinking tables, I love working on them and would like to help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I work mostly on WP:CRIME and WP:ACTOR, and stay busy with that. I want to thank you for the effort you made to include me on the table discussion and for championing my design. I feel really good about it and want to help. I'll pitch in and do what I can. I think clean tables add a lot to articles when they are used well. Meanwhile, I've been watching I Love Lucy this week and they've shown some of the best episodes lately - the "Vitameatavegamin", Lucy in the freezer, Lucy baking bread - all ones I vividly remember from being a kid (they were in reruns then too!). Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)