User talk:Erik/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Erik. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Re: New Moon
Hi there! I know about the notability guidelines, but figured that since a budget had been set and much work had been done into finding a new director, the article could stay. I actually wasn't the one who created the page. I saw that it was created by another user and that they had blatantly copied the information from the Twilight (2008 film) page, which I found unacceptable, so I began working on the page immediately to improve it. If you feel that merging it into another article is the best course of action, especially if it is to abide by Wikipedia's policies, I wholeheartedly support it. I just hope that all of my hours of work on the article will be saved. ;-) I really appreciate the head's up and thank you for your feedback on this. Let me know what you decide to do either way. And as far as the Twilight (2008 film) article goes, anyone is welcome to edit to it. I actually haven't focused on that article too much as my attention has been on the New Moon article. But feel free to put in some new information if you feel that it will better the article. Again, thank you for your time. – Ms. Sarita Confer 04:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| For taking the time to leave all of those wonderful references and offering to help! – Ms. Sarita Confer 20:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC) |
Fight Club
Very surprised that Fight Club is not an FA. Wow. I wonder what the problem with it is? Hey heres a darker tan version of "the jacket". I used to have a more redder one but it got too small on me, same as this one but I kept this one for vintage timesake!. The Bald One White cat 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally there is an Indian actress called Mala Sinha. Cooincidence? The Bald One White cat 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Adminship
Hey Erik!
I know you're about as busy on this project as one can be and I know that added tools usually mean added work but I wanted to ask you if you're at all interested in running for adminship. You have most definitely earned the trust of the Film community to put those extra buttons to good use and, the more you are able to do, the more the WikiProject will benefit. What are your thoughts on this?
Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I am going to see this movie with my brother in January 2009, do you think it will turn out to be a great one? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Films
Interested to know what you thought of both of these if you have the time; I'm considering seeing TDtESS. As for Wanted, the first five minutes promised Fight Club meets The Matrix (which would possibly make it the best film ever made), but for me it swiftly degenerated into a bog-standard (albeit pretty) actioner of very dubious morals and with a thoroughly unlikeable lead character. Steve T • C 08:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
At World's End
Erik, you're very civil so can you explain to an editor using multiple IPs, who falls into WP:UNDUE, why he/she cannot add speculation to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann because they cannot accept the ending of the film? Thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Tropic Thunder and parameters
Thanks for leaving your support. I was wondering if you could answer some of the questions that I asked from the issues you raised. If not, no big deal, I know you're busy. You can always take another look once I take it to FAC. Also, we're planning on starting a tag & assess drive sometime early next year and I've started a basic framework in my sandbox based on the Military History project's prior drives. If there is anything you want to add to it or if you want to modify anything, feel free. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate the replies. A while back I remember seeing a discussion about adding a parameter to the film banner asking for a production section (similar to the needs-image/needs-infobox/needs-synopsis/needs-cast). Do you think that we should add this? With the upcoming drive, we can add it to all articles that are missing a production section. I left a question on Girolamo's page about the potential tag and am also curious about your opinion, especially with the adoption of the new production guideline. I want to determine if we plan on adding the parameter before the drive starts, because it would be harder to implement once the drive is over. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's that discussion! Maybe instead of "needs-bkgd", "needs-prod" would be better (its easier to type and is less likely to have an error). The date of the drive is unknown, since I haven't got any feedback from Girolamo as of yet. I've left the beginning and ending date blank in my sandbox revision since I wasn't sure. I'm guessing it will probably be at the end of January (wild guess) or during the summer. Perhaps we should wait until the responses of the questionnaire is completed to determine how interested people are in contributing to a tag & assess drive. I'm sure the parameter will be easy to implement/create, I was just curious if we were still interested in adding it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- The revised change to the cast section looks good and it also looks ready to implement. For the requested image parameter, I agree that we should request that it be for the infobox. Otherwise, it may encourage new editors to just add screenshots that don't meet the fair use requirements (like I've done in the past). However, we still need to ensure that we keep asking for free images since there was such a backlash for just asking for nonfree images. Rewording that parameter's instructions can also be done when adding the production parameter. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's that discussion! Maybe instead of "needs-bkgd", "needs-prod" would be better (its easier to type and is less likely to have an error). The date of the drive is unknown, since I haven't got any feedback from Girolamo as of yet. I've left the beginning and ending date blank in my sandbox revision since I wasn't sure. I'm guessing it will probably be at the end of January (wild guess) or during the summer. Perhaps we should wait until the responses of the questionnaire is completed to determine how interested people are in contributing to a tag & assess drive. I'm sure the parameter will be easy to implement/create, I was just curious if we were still interested in adding it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see you converted the awards section to a table, since I thought you were one of those who didn't care for boxes in film articles. I think the format you chose makes the list difficult to read, and I believe the situation will get worse if the film continues to receive nominations as the award season progresses, which will make the box overly long and clumsy looking. Formatting awards and nominations never has been addressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Do you think it's time to initiate a discussion about this? Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Those of us who are less technically inclined will find the table format a nuisance to use given all specifications that must be added in order to create it. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.P.S. On the table of awards for Milk, the line separating the different awards is so faint (on my screen, at least) I can't tell where one ends and the next begins. Since this is not the case with Revolutionary Road, I'm guessing the problem isn't related to my monitor. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Eric! I didn't mean to suggest prose was a better format. I personally prefer the simple list used in Slumdog Millionaire. It's easy to read and I don't think it provides too much white space. As for Milk, I tried increasing the 2px to 3px but there was no noticeable difference, so I left it as is. I think the problem is the use of the color gray for the dividing lines, since it washes out against the background. As it stands now, it's very difficult to read the list without a distinct break between the different awards. Since you seem to be more proficient than I when it comes to the techical aspects, perhaps you can fix it. Thanks for your response! LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
RE: Valkyrie Critical Response
RE: Valkyrie Critical response
Hello Erik, I very much appreciate your guidance. Can you detail please why you have a problem with adding the Roger Ebert review to the Valkyrie page and what was "messy.?" I very much wish to comply with your guidelines but don't understand at this point. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.146.236 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear User:Eric,
I used your advice with success!
Let me know if their is anything else that needs fixing on the film or series.
Thanx so much for the great advice! I really appreciate it.
ATC (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
--A NobodyMy talk 02:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Certain words
Certain words are not a good idea in an encyclopedia. Such as "recent".
- "Erik was unable to edit Wikipedia due to a recent accident."
It very quickly becomes dated.
Better:
- "Erik was unable to edit Wikipedia due to an accident."
or
- "Erik was unable to edit Wikipedia due to an accident in December 2008."
Tip-O'-the-Day: Write for five years from now...
- 4.240.78.248 (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, I try to avoid that when I can... probably was thinking something along the lines of "at the time". Thanks for catching it! I do hope I don't have an accident this month, though. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Your Watchmen page
I have the essays since you sent them to me, and will incorporate what I can in the future. Meanwhile, we've redirected the character pages to List of characters in Watchmen. If you can do anything to fill that out (even just copying info from Watchmen; I've been meaning to do that, but I was wondering how to strucure the article), that would be appreciated. Thanks for all your help with the aticle. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how the character list could be best handled. Considering that the source material was one-shot, it's hard for me to support such a list when all the important events should already be conveyed on the main article. Also, from what I recollect in reading the essays, they covered how the characters related to each other (the ideology of Rorschach vs. the ideology of Ozymandias), which seems more appropriate in the context of the comic book series article itself. You may want to ask Bignole about feedback for character lists... he put together some character articles for Smallville that were pretty decent. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen those, but they are a bit too in-universe and filled with unnecessary details. Characters of Carnivàle seems like a good model to follow. Personally, I feel we may not even need separate article about the characters, but nonetheless it's currently a step in the right direction away from a week ago, where each character had their own article, filled with excruciatingly detailed in-universe plot details and little to no real world context. Oh, yes, and merry Christmas to you. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas to you, too! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen those, but they are a bit too in-universe and filled with unnecessary details. Characters of Carnivàle seems like a good model to follow. Personally, I feel we may not even need separate article about the characters, but nonetheless it's currently a step in the right direction away from a week ago, where each character had their own article, filled with excruciatingly detailed in-universe plot details and little to no real world context. Oh, yes, and merry Christmas to you. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Hello Erik! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One White cat 11:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas to you, too! :) I hope you celebrate in the company of family and friends! —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
|
|
Merry Christmas! | |
| Wildhartlivie wishes you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Thanks for being my Wiki-buddy! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
- Merry Christmas to you, too! I hope that you enjoy the festivities with family and friends! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Erik. Hope the day finds you suitably full of food, cheer, and maybe a little illicit alcohol. All the best, Steve T • C 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Same goes for you! :) There is a crown roast being prepared for tonight, and I hope to enjoy it as well as sweet potatoes and other items. Hope you celebrate and eat and drink in good company! —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
X-mas
My christmas was good, and I hope yours was as well. I got a couple of things (special edition DVDs and a book) that should help me on Wikipedia. :D Other than that, it's just been nice to get away from everything. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Knowing
Why the fuck do you keep on removing the reference to the Australian Synchrotron from the article about Knowing. Just bloody well leave it alone for once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.110.226 (talk • contribs) 09:16, December 26, 2008
- From what I could gather from sources that would probably not be considered reliable on Wikipedia, the conference room of the Australian Synchrotron was used. The citation that was provided in the article is no longer accessible, so it's not clear if this means the Synchrotron has a real presence in the film other than the use of a conference room, which seems unimportant. If we talked about Cage doing experiments with the Synchrotron itself, then it seems like that would be important and already covered by reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Found something to use! Hope this suffices. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
US vs Worldwide theatrical releases
The page List of Disney feature films represents a films released theatrically (duh) by Disney... but there are some films that Disney released overseas theatrically but only as direct-to-video in the US (if it is released in the US at all). I know that in most cases on film pages, the foreign release dates are not included in the english wikipedia, so could the same philosophy be applied to this page as well, so the page won't reflect foreign-only theatrical releases? Or is that too US-centric? SpikeJones (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the theatrical release of a Disney feature film outside the United States would definitely be worth noting if there was no such theatrical release in the United States itself. Maybe the list could have a kind of footnote (I forgot what the "t" symbol is called) to explain that the theatrical release was foreign. It'd definitely be good to do this to avoid systemic bias. I did notice that it was a "list of notable theatrical feature films", so not sure if these foreign releases qualify. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The article Quantum of Solace you have contributed to has been passed 
as a good article . Well done! SilkTork *YES! 12:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot take credit for helping Quantum of Solace become a Good Article, as my contributions were very minor. :) I believe Alientraveller deserves a good portion of the credit. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot to ask what you thought of it. Alientraveller (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was fine for a one-time viewing, but I would probably not revisit the film, unlike Casino Royale. QoS felt like it was finishing up the loose ends from CR, and the tone was pretty muted for a Bond film. At least in CR there was a more balanced Bond, whereas in Qos he felt more like the Punisher (not in the strictest sense, of course). Plus, the editing of the action scenes was a little too wild. I hope that future films are a little more episodic and not serial in the sense of carrying over moods. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot to ask what you thought of it. Alientraveller (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The Dark Knight
I've just found these two recently created articles:
I know you have an interest in this film, so you may know best how to deal with them. Regards. PC78 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I redirected both to the main article since they were spun off without a clear notice (or discussion). I also left a note on the editor's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mewvi
Erik, ever so sorry if i have offended but there seems to be a large number of films on wikipedia which provide links to trailers for readers to watch. It seems in line with Wikipedia:External links to provide links to a website which offers:
- The trailer
- Alignment with 'Links normally to be avoided' etc..
- Zero advertising (feels like the wiki way?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojabuck (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is a pretty major trend for people to have trailer websites that are not approved by the studio... usually in different formats. I know that some formats, like QuickTime, can be ugly, but Wikipedia can't endorse a website that takes trailers, re-formats them, and re-hosts them. Thankfully, studios are leaning more toward the Flash-based format, but in the meantime, it's not appropriate to solicit these trailer websites. The templates you may have seen in film articles are for websites that are generally agreed upon to provide substantial information beyond a film (Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for reviews, IMDb for cast/crew info and forum chat, Box Office Mojo for box office details, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Grindhouse
Sorry this isn't editing related, but it's film related, so oh well. I see that you just watched Planet Terror, and previously, Death Proof. I just wanted to point out that since you have Netflix, you can watch the double feature instantly online (with faux trailers as well). I have Blockbuster online (no double feature for me!), but after visiting family for the Christmas break, I was able to see it with Netflix. Not sure if you saw the full version in theaters or not, but it's much more interesting to see together than separately. I'm still waiting for the release of the full DVD/Blu-ray, hopefully it comes along with the release of Inglorious Bastards. Anyway, just wanted to point it out to you if you weren't aware. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up! I've checked out Netflix's Watch Instantly, but unfortunately, their Help Center says, "Foreign-language movies watched instantly on your PC will have subtitles. We don't currently provide Closed Captioning, nor subtitling of English language movies, but you’ll find those on most of our DVDs." I assume that I missed out on a couple of faux trailers in watching the films separately, right? I know that there was a faux trailer by Eli Roth titled "Thanksgiving" or something... —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, the only one to be included on the DVD was Machete. The other faux trailers include Don't, Werewolf Women of the SS, and Thanksgiving. When I watched it there were no subtitles (although I usually use subtitles myself for most films I watch). Are you looking for subtitles or is it an error message coming up? By the way thanks for helping out with the newsletter again. I was surprised to see no films for release this Friday on the 2009 in film list, and was going to wait to add some til I found something. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by your question about the subtitles and error messages. I tried the "Watch Instantly" feature but could not find any capability to turn on English subtitles or closed captioning, leading me to find the answer at the Help Center. I'll have to find the faux trailers elsewhere, since I'm used to trailers without captions anyway. :) And yeah, there was a gap, and I just recalled that Defiance and Good were opening this Wednesday. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was just confused on whether you needed English subtitles to watch the film or if you were prevented from watching the film because you saw some message detailing the lack of subtitles. Out of curiosity, were you able to find any more print sources for Tropic Thunder in your newspaper databases? I'm eager to head to FA at some point (if the A-class review ever ends), and would appreciate any additional sources for the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I need them, being deaf -- that or closed captioning. DVD commentaries have usually been my bane, having been without either, but these days, they are more likely to be subtitled (requires a second track of English subtitles, the first one being for the film's dialogue). As for Tropic Thunder, I recall looking briefly for print reviews, but I think you covered quite a bit already. Have you tried tracking down the bits at the trivia page? Sometimes there is a modicum of truth to some items, so maybe you can find the reliable sources that back them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't know that. I usually watch all of my movies with subtitles (which usually angers family and friends!) just because I sometimes misinterpret what is said or like to see some background comments that I wouldn't normally hear. I'm curious, are there ways to watch films with subtitles at theaters or do you usually have to wait for DVD? For the trivia page, I think I already did that a few months back, and I think the new trivia bits are now actually taken from the article itself! I guess I just need to keep an eye out for any more award nominations and work on fine-tuning the text. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, there is open captioning (like closed captioning but in title case and without the black background) and rear-window captioning. Where I go to school, there is neither in the area. Here at home, there are a few, which is why I've been able to see The Day the Earth Stood Still, Valkyrie, and Yes Man. I was hoping for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to be captioned this weekend (since films change weekly), but this is not the case, unfortunately. Mainstream films tend to be captioned, which works for me, but there are some awards contenders that I've wanted to watch like The Wrestler (don't ask me how I got to see Slumdog Millionaire yesterday). As for IMDb's trivia pages, yes, they do copy Wikipedia. I sort of wonder if they add in the passage's citation with it or not... I remember getting a bit of trivia removed for Doomsday because it was word-for-word (my words!) from the Wikipedia article. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't know that. I usually watch all of my movies with subtitles (which usually angers family and friends!) just because I sometimes misinterpret what is said or like to see some background comments that I wouldn't normally hear. I'm curious, are there ways to watch films with subtitles at theaters or do you usually have to wait for DVD? For the trivia page, I think I already did that a few months back, and I think the new trivia bits are now actually taken from the article itself! I guess I just need to keep an eye out for any more award nominations and work on fine-tuning the text. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I need them, being deaf -- that or closed captioning. DVD commentaries have usually been my bane, having been without either, but these days, they are more likely to be subtitled (requires a second track of English subtitles, the first one being for the film's dialogue). As for Tropic Thunder, I recall looking briefly for print reviews, but I think you covered quite a bit already. Have you tried tracking down the bits at the trivia page? Sometimes there is a modicum of truth to some items, so maybe you can find the reliable sources that back them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was just confused on whether you needed English subtitles to watch the film or if you were prevented from watching the film because you saw some message detailing the lack of subtitles. Out of curiosity, were you able to find any more print sources for Tropic Thunder in your newspaper databases? I'm eager to head to FA at some point (if the A-class review ever ends), and would appreciate any additional sources for the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by your question about the subtitles and error messages. I tried the "Watch Instantly" feature but could not find any capability to turn on English subtitles or closed captioning, leading me to find the answer at the Help Center. I'll have to find the faux trailers elsewhere, since I'm used to trailers without captions anyway. :) And yeah, there was a gap, and I just recalled that Defiance and Good were opening this Wednesday. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, the only one to be included on the DVD was Machete. The other faux trailers include Don't, Werewolf Women of the SS, and Thanksgiving. When I watched it there were no subtitles (although I usually use subtitles myself for most films I watch). Are you looking for subtitles or is it an error message coming up? By the way thanks for helping out with the newsletter again. I was surprised to see no films for release this Friday on the 2009 in film list, and was going to wait to add some til I found something. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Rear-window captioning looks interesting and I'm suprised I've never heard about it before. I've been limited with seeing films in theaters in December due to finals but hopefully I can see Benjamin Button sometime this month. I had the opportunity to go and see Slumdog Millionaire for a free screening earlier last month but I had class and was unaware of how good the film was going to be and unfortunately skipped it. For trivia bits and quotes from articles, I'm always surprised to see things that I wrote copied exactly for trivia pages and blogs. It's cool to see information I gathered sourced in newspapers though. I guess the good and the bad offset each other. What I'm surprised with so far is that movie studios haven't considered hiring people or contacting our project with materials to improve articles on their upcoming/released films. I'm sure they're scared of being accused of pushing POV, but I think there are ways they could work with our project to help find better sources, maybe free images, etc. If that ever happens, I think it would benefit the project, but it's likely it won't. There would probably have to be some study that finds a correlation between views to a film article to ticket/DVD sales. You've got to wonder if all of the work you've done for upcoming films has inspired some people to go and see a film based on an interesting production history or a well-developed cast section. Anyway, I'm rambling, so happy new year! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
No Country for Old Men list
Hi there and Happy New Year! In the last couple of days, PC78 has shown up at my FL review for List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations and raised a "weak oppose" based on the table style. To me, he's overstating his objections in our WP:FILMS discussion, but maybe I'm wrong. As I've said before, I'm a bit reserved about some members, and I'd appreciate a different set of eyes on the comments. It comes down, in my view, to him saying "I don't like the table, so there". His last comment was "my primary concern here is with regard to the text size." The thing is, I don't find anywhere on WP:FILMS that he mentioned text size. Please take a look when you can and give me your thoughts? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I went to WP:FL and randomly looked at a couple dozen examples to see what their text sizes were. There was only one that had the same text size as your list. For whatever reason, we did not talk about text sizes. I'm fine with it either way, but I think that PC78 has a point about readability for the article body. We may use {{reflist}} to reduce the text size of references, but I believe that is an attempt to compress what is not the "meat" of the article. I previewed your list without the 90%, and it seems fine without the reduction. Might be a fix to apply to the other examples, too. What do you think? What is the justification for smaller text size? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would say it's justification, it's a visual preference. I find the tables bulky at standard font size, although previously WP:ACTOR used 95% rather than 90%. What if I changed it to 95%? What about his comments on the background color? I don't see a difference in background color on any of the examples I mentioned, including the one he said has none. I guess I also wonder why he is objecting overall more strenuously at the FL review than he did on our discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that colors are less of a concern than the text size, since the difference is not enormous. If it is the trend of Featured Lists to use standard font size, maybe it's best to convert. Think about it... you've been designing tables in the smaller text size for a while, so of course the standard font size will appear bulky. :) Hypothetically, if you make the change universally, in a few months, the discomfort is nonexistent. As for PC78's opposition, can it not be seen as constructive criticism? Part of it may be grounded in the various points that he brought up late in the discussion, but since it was late, the points were not really taken up. As he said, he doesn't feel like that it was conclusive, so he brought his issues to the FLC process. (So don't take it personally... some editors want to keep their ideas alive, for better or worse... heck, I keep trying to bring up changes to our article guidelines all the time.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would say it's justification, it's a visual preference. I find the tables bulky at standard font size, although previously WP:ACTOR used 95% rather than 90%. What if I changed it to 95%? What about his comments on the background color? I don't see a difference in background color on any of the examples I mentioned, including the one he said has none. I guess I also wonder why he is objecting overall more strenuously at the FL review than he did on our discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter
The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just spotted your comment elsewhere about the editor; time permitting, I meant to dig into this more deeply, but it seems to me that the editor is an obvious sock of our old friend User:TracyLinkEdnaVelmaPenny (aka User:LinkToddMcLovinMontana). Saying that, he has started to use edit summaries on his last few edits, so maybe no action will be needed. As you say, many of the edits are good ones, it's just a hell of a job figuring out which ones sometimes. Steve T • C 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good call; I forgot about that editor. I did not notice since the contributions were different from the ones TracyLinkEdnaVelmaPenny made, which were to more Disney-related film articles. I'm checking the editor's contributions once in a while and plan to give a heads-up if any edits are astray, like the removal of {{defaultsort}} from film articles starting with "The". (I did see the template appropriately removed at a film article without "The", "A", or "An", so maybe some clarification was just needed.) Welcome back, by the way... seems like you had a pretty busy holiday. :) I have not had any adventures over break myself, unfortunately. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nor me, to be honest. It's just that the free time I've had over the last few weeks has been almost exclusively spent with family. Any time I've been able to devote to Wikipedia has come in short 5/10/15-minute bursts, which means I get enough time to dip into maybe a couple of threads, but not enough to be involved in a more in-depth discussion about anything. That should change come Monday when more normal routines come back into play. Hope you had a good one, Steve T • C 02:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Film runtimes
I began timing every movie that I see in theaters a couple months ago precisely because I've noticed over a long period of time that runtimes listed in reviews are very frequently inaccurate. For instance, the last film I saw, The Wrestler, as you pointed out, is listed by the New York Times as having a 109 minute runtime, but the film in theaters (at least U.S. theaters) is actually closer to 115 minutes, a whole 6 minutes difference. Sometimes the reviews don't even agree with each other; for instance, Fandango lists it as being 105 minutes long. Actually, as I'm checking it now, the NYT's reviews/articles don't even agree with each other: review/overview. I think the biggest difference in listed runtime I've ever personally observed was My Blueberry Nights, which at the time was stated by many reviews/databases as being 90 minutes long, but in actuality is much closer to two hours (again, at least in U.S. theaters).
I've found that the most accurate secondary source (i.e. not the film itself) for runtimes to be the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), which usually corresponds very closely to the measurements I record. However, for a handful of films, I find there is still a difference (as here with The Wrestler, they also list it as being 109 minutes long). My theory for this is one of two things: (a) they were working with an earlier cut of the film (their page lists it as having been rated back on October 31, shortly after it first screened at Venice), or (b) the film was cut differently for other regions for any number of reasons. (again, all the times I observe are from U.S. theaters, so I guess it is possible there is a different cut in Britain). –Fierce Beaver (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know where you're coming from. It's definitely easier to just click on a link to verify as opposed to making a trip out to the theater. I figure it's possible and probably likely someone might change or challenge the times I record based on differences with numbers listed in a faulty review, but I guess what is most important for me is to at least get the correct numbers out there initially, and then hopefully an unmodified DVD version will be availble after the initial theatrical run is complete. If nothing else, then the values can at least serve as a guideline for people hunting for other secondary sources in situations when there are conflicting reports. Would you like me to add citations to the films themselves in the future so that future editors can more quickly see these times come from the actual film in question and aren't just some bozo pulling random numbers out of his ass? –Fierce Beaver (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your referencing the DVD reminds me of a cool/annoying fact: when a film is transferred to video the running time will be shorter by approximately 4% due to the differing number of frames per second. So a 90 minute film becomes an 86.4 minute film. Steve T • C 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think I've heard that before too, but I believe it only affects PAL (Europe) and SECAM (France and Eastern Europe) format DVDs. Although looking at your userpage now I see you're from the UK, so I guess this phenomenon would affect you... :) If I recall correctly, NTSC format DVDs don't have the same speedup timing issue because they use a different frame duplication methodology to convert native film's 23.976 fps framerate to the 29.97 NTSC framerate, called 3:2 pulldown (this article, I've just discovered, has a really good discussion of the issue). However, since the PAL framerate of 25 fps is so close to that of film, they just speed it up by said 4% (which apparently, if you are listening carefully, can lead to noticeable sound distortion to keep it in sync with the faster video). So... the moral of the story is, always use Region 1 DVDs if you are grabbing runtimes! –Fierce Beaver (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Life of the Mind
Thanks so much for your kind feedback on the article. I do plan to pursue FAC very soon, but I need to get some feedback from a friend who's taken a movie article through first. Incidentally, you might enjoy the flash animation thingy that I did, Writing for the Pictures. I apparently pulled one part out of my ear (I always assumed it was Capital Pictures), but it also has a few worthwhile things that are more on the OR side of things.
Anyway, thanks again and Happy New Year! Scartol • Tok 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear User:Eric,
I was wondering if you could answer my question I made on the discussion page.
Thanx!
ATC (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Dear User:Eric
- I made a reply to your comment and fixed up what you said—big time.
- Thanx!
- ATC (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, User:Eric!
I made a reply on the talk page.
Check it out when you get the chance.
ATC (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wolverine
Ok then. (: — Jhn* 16:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Reader
I'll probably watchlist it as I have with The Lovely Bones and The Devil Wears Prada, two other film articles that started from books that I had read and developed the articles on extensively. If you've got a Google capture set up, you can add any news items that are relevant ... I'm sure there will be Oscar noms (Kate Winslet will definitely get a nom for this, and (depending on the competition) the statuette itself. She's that good, believe me). When the DVD comes out I'll probably rent it and add things from it as well (that's how DWP got so long, because the commentary and documentary are so informative). Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Valkyrie
Ah wow, nice Christmas present, the cinema had a subtitled version up and ready? How was it? Alientraveller (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- It already had one, yep! I was pretty surprised since it takes a week for a released film to be captioned. I had a lot of fun watching the film... Singer definitely made a worthwhile thriller. Kept up the suspense with the music, especially toward the end, where it gets so frantic (even though one already knows the outcome). I guess the only qualm I have with it is that Cruise is Cruise. He has acting chops, don't get me wrong, but it was hard to see him as Stauffenberg. It wasn't that big of a deal, though. The movie does make me want to learn more about the plot and the previous plots. Might see Yes Man today for a chance of pace... Seven Pounds is also captioned, but I may wait for DVD with that one. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can hear music? Alientraveller (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can. :) This device helps me out. I don't always follow music in a film if it is too much in the background, but the captioning does point out the tone during the film (e.g. "(suspenseful music)") and brings it to my attention as I watch the film. Of course, that kind of captioning is not always helpful... seeing something like "(rousing, heroic music)" makes me roll my eyes during a self-evident scene. (Didn't happen for Valkyrie.) One film in which I noticed the music without any focal points was There Will Be Blood... the music really drew me into the film. I suppose the difference is that I don't get the nuances of the music, but I can sense the atmosphere it provides. So for hearing dialogue, I can hear words being spoken, but I can only make sense out of some. With captions to read, the words suddenly make perfect sense (especially with Singer's American accents, haha). —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, so what music do you listen to? Can you hum like famous theme tunes or classical pieces? Alientraveller (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly the rock variety, though jazz and piano are good, too. I use Pandora since I haven't hooked up my music-loaded PC for school this year. I listen to bands like Coldplay, Radiohead, Jack Johnson... was trying some Thievery Corporation lately. There's a spiffy application called Minilyrics that I use to follow lyrics of a song. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, so what music do you listen to? Can you hum like famous theme tunes or classical pieces? Alientraveller (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can. :) This device helps me out. I don't always follow music in a film if it is too much in the background, but the captioning does point out the tone during the film (e.g. "(suspenseful music)") and brings it to my attention as I watch the film. Of course, that kind of captioning is not always helpful... seeing something like "(rousing, heroic music)" makes me roll my eyes during a self-evident scene. (Didn't happen for Valkyrie.) One film in which I noticed the music without any focal points was There Will Be Blood... the music really drew me into the film. I suppose the difference is that I don't get the nuances of the music, but I can sense the atmosphere it provides. So for hearing dialogue, I can hear words being spoken, but I can only make sense out of some. With captions to read, the words suddenly make perfect sense (especially with Singer's American accents, haha). —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can hear music? Alientraveller (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it's worth mentioning Fox News' feud with Cruise over the movie? [1] Alientraveller (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that it might be undue weight. Friedman was banned from a private screening of the film and had to pay his own way to review it. Hence a pretty vengeful review that I would not consider using in the "Critical reception" section at all, considering that there are other negative reviews that don't reflect this kind of bias. I don't know Defamer's coverage substantiates the issue, which seems very minor in the scheme of things. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's another, more reliable, cite that I saw the other day (it might have been in the LA Times) that apportioned much of Valkyrie's bad pre-release buzz to Friedman (which also chimes in with my reading of what's been popping up in my Google News Alerts over the last six months). Do we think that would be worthy of mention? Steve T • C 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, here it is. Not quite as clear cut as I remember, unfortunately. Steve T • C 19:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was just about to look for it, since I knew what you meant. My take is that right now, the coverage is not very retrospective, so its relevance is not really established. (This is in opposition to retrospective coverage acknowledging that the film was being attacked early on.) Let's keep an eye out to see if this becomes a real thing, but I'm more interested in trying to expand on the German response or to start a "historical accuracy" section (which I feel will be forthcoming; just the holidays now for most people, even academics). —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, here it is. Not quite as clear cut as I remember, unfortunately. Steve T • C 19:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's another, more reliable, cite that I saw the other day (it might have been in the LA Times) that apportioned much of Valkyrie's bad pre-release buzz to Friedman (which also chimes in with my reading of what's been popping up in my Google News Alerts over the last six months). Do we think that would be worthy of mention? Steve T • C 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I just read an io9 article on the Watchmen ruling. Apparently Fox is Sauron, Palpatine and Lord Voldemort put together, yet I'm going to have to rely on them to continue Narnia now that that mouse jumped the Dawn Treader. Poor Bryan Singer, do you think he'll eventually regret casting Cruise? Alientraveller (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hard to tell if Singer will regret it, since it's not clear if Cruise is box office poison now... Lions for Lambs was not exactly the kind of movie that people rushed out to see. It had Redford and Streep! I think that a vocal minority dislikes Cruise (especially on the Internet, sheesh) but I'm sure that he has his fans. It's just a matter of having an appreciation for him and the subject matter. I don't know if Valkyrie will quite get its money back, but I doubt that it will be a clear-cut flop like Lions for Lambs was. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to write a plot summary? Alientraveller (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wrote one... not sure about all the details, but that should be a good start. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mertz
Not that I'm in any way trying to start an edit war here, but... would you, like millions throughout the world, consider William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich a reliable (if not the definitive) account of the Nazi era? If so, then Mertz von Quirnheim is a name used only once in that book - Mertz is the name used most frequently to denote Stauffenberg's confederate. Why is this so hard for you to accept? BassPlyr23 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It seemed best to revert to the figures by their surnames and not worry so much about nomenclature. Was Mertz used in the film more often than Quirnheim? —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall if he was referred to by either name very much in the film. I'd have to check the DVD release, since I'm not planning to see the film again just to settle this discussion. You haven't mentioned whether you consider Shirer a reliable source - why not just leave it for now? BassPlyr23 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, I won't see the film again to settle the discussion, either. :) An easier way might be to look at reviews that make mention of Mertz/Quirnheim. I guess I won't make a big deal out of it, but if the usage is disputed by an independent editor, it may need to be revisited. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Movie reviews as encyclopedic sources? Why, when you have a scholarly source cited? Have you ever read the Shirer book? Most scholars view it as the definitive account of the Nazi era, with a sizable chapter devoted to the events depicted in "Valkyrie". If Shirer calls him Mertz and not von Quirnheim, that's good enough for me - and considering that Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in content as well as tone, it should be good enough for you as well. BassPlyr23 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am talking about in context of the film. Neither of us can recall which was the more popularly used name, and I had written the surnames in the Plot section. So when it comes to reading about the film itself, one or the other may be more appropriate, and obviously reviews would answer the question better than Shirer. If we were talking about the historical article, then that would be a different story, you know? Like I said, it's not a huge concern to me. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hope you noticed that I left "Mertz" in the section! I was cleaning up the ending of the section instead. Make sure you check the changes actually made before reverting! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Trivia
MiltonP Ottawa (talk · contribs) has a funny opinion: interesting information in film articles is trivia. I'm also treating Wikipedia like a fan site and haven't read WP:AVTRIVIA. So I'm basically asking for help because of your "superior intellect" ;) Alientraveller (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've opened a thread at WP:AN. I thought this was amusing and then he proposed Jack Sparrow for deletion. Alientraveller (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Proposing Jack Sparrow for deletion seems like disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Careful with reverting him too much, though. I'll watch his contributions. And yeah, I don't know how removing original research at Valkyrie turned into harassment. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Future films tracking table
I was feeling creative and came up with this:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Tracking table
If you think it needs anything let me know. I'll figure out somewhere to put it later! :) PC78 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is awesome! :) How about a clearer label than "???"? Otherwise, it looks great! Feel free to put it somewhere at WP:FUTFILM#Tracking. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers! How about "TBA" instead? PC78 (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- TBA works stupendously. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
TT image
I added a new image to Tropic Thunder showing Downey, Jr. and Cruise side-by-side their respective characters. Let me know if you think it is to much (or if I should have only shown Cruise) or if it needs further FUR/cutting down on the caption. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, I think it is a good image! My only suggestion is to have separate fair use rationales for both film images... from what I've seen of other compilations used, each one has to be explained. Also, is there not a better free image of Tom Cruise, something more directly at the camera? I think it is a cool compilation, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll look for other compilations to see if I can expand the FUR further. I really wanted a better picture of Cruise but as you can see, there aren't that many great images of him. I got that black and white one added by asking the author for permission a while back, but I don't think the black and white would have paired up well with the three color images. Many of the best images of him are from the late 80s, and I figured the most recent/best one is the one I added. I'm going to take another look at Flickr and see if I can get permission for a better image. Perhaps he had somebody take an image of him while campaigning for Valkyrie. If that's the case, then perhaps we can get the image added to the film article as well. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- You know what I daydreamt earlier this week, being the wikiholic I am? Managing to get WikiProject Films up to a stature where we could actually request for filmmakers from different studios to provide freely licensed photos from productions. Another nice goal would be to get photos of cast members together at a film's release... ah, an editor can dream. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I sent out two requests tonight for some more recent Tom Cruise images, so hopefully those pan out. I probably daydream more than I should about the direction of our project as well. Like that large rambling paragraph I had above, it's good to see that I'm not the only one hoping the studios would help us out. Perhaps we need to work on a nice, well-thought out letter that we could send to the studios detailing how we could help them (obviously not going to be developing POV-language for how awesome the film is). We could point out that we would be making the articles look more professional with any images they would be willing to provide (they would only need to provide one out of the hundreds they have for each film). Maybe if we show them some of our best articles, and show illustrations of some of the poor free images that we have, we can inspire them to help us out. Add some signatures by all the coordinators and as many members as possible, and I think we have a chance. Or not, but you never know. I've always been surprised to see the amount of people who've said yes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think the studios themselves are the best entities to go to? I am not sure about copyrights when it comes to someone taking pictures on a set. Sometimes there's set visits, so maybe the people who do set visits can be contacted. There's also the possibility of reaching directors who have blogs... Michael Bay and Jon Favreau come to mind. Also, the editor David Shankbone, I recall, was able to get a "WikiMedia" press tag to take pictures at the Tribeca Film Festival. How good are your contacts, N2020? :) Wanna be our photographer? I will also be moving to the DC area for a job, so I may try to see what it is like to locate film productions and find out how close I can get. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I myself don't know who exactly we should be contacting. Perhaps we should see if there are any members who work/have worked in the film industry and see if they have any recommendations. I wouldn't mind going to events to take pictures, but I unfortunately am not that dedicated to drive 2 hours to LA to photograph premieres (well maybe sometimes). Since I've just graduated and am currently job searching right now, when I start working I'm going to be limited to editing. However, working to secure some relationships with contacts who can get us access to images will definitely be something we need to follow up on in the future. If anything happens in San Diego though, I'm up for it! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think the studios themselves are the best entities to go to? I am not sure about copyrights when it comes to someone taking pictures on a set. Sometimes there's set visits, so maybe the people who do set visits can be contacted. There's also the possibility of reaching directors who have blogs... Michael Bay and Jon Favreau come to mind. Also, the editor David Shankbone, I recall, was able to get a "WikiMedia" press tag to take pictures at the Tribeca Film Festival. How good are your contacts, N2020? :) Wanna be our photographer? I will also be moving to the DC area for a job, so I may try to see what it is like to locate film productions and find out how close I can get. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I sent out two requests tonight for some more recent Tom Cruise images, so hopefully those pan out. I probably daydream more than I should about the direction of our project as well. Like that large rambling paragraph I had above, it's good to see that I'm not the only one hoping the studios would help us out. Perhaps we need to work on a nice, well-thought out letter that we could send to the studios detailing how we could help them (obviously not going to be developing POV-language for how awesome the film is). We could point out that we would be making the articles look more professional with any images they would be willing to provide (they would only need to provide one out of the hundreds they have for each film). Maybe if we show them some of our best articles, and show illustrations of some of the poor free images that we have, we can inspire them to help us out. Add some signatures by all the coordinators and as many members as possible, and I think we have a chance. Or not, but you never know. I've always been surprised to see the amount of people who've said yes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- You know what I daydreamt earlier this week, being the wikiholic I am? Managing to get WikiProject Films up to a stature where we could actually request for filmmakers from different studios to provide freely licensed photos from productions. Another nice goal would be to get photos of cast members together at a film's release... ah, an editor can dream. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll look for other compilations to see if I can expand the FUR further. I really wanted a better picture of Cruise but as you can see, there aren't that many great images of him. I got that black and white one added by asking the author for permission a while back, but I don't think the black and white would have paired up well with the three color images. Many of the best images of him are from the late 80s, and I figured the most recent/best one is the one I added. I'm going to take another look at Flickr and see if I can get permission for a better image. Perhaps he had somebody take an image of him while campaigning for Valkyrie. If that's the case, then perhaps we can get the image added to the film article as well. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
FT
Well, if someone can get Apt Pupil and Bryan Singer to GA status then they could be a Good Topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I might do Apt Pupil... I might be in the best position for it since a good portion of possible information may not be available online. The subscription-only databases encompass that decade. There was something on the film article's talk page about a lawsuit which was subsequently removed due to lack of citation, and I searched out of morbid curiosity about it. Found a few print sources that can address the lawsuit and other aspects of the film. Bryan Singer, though... I imagine we could stitch his involvements with each film together (a little more cleanly than his article presents; subsectioning for every film is a bit much). No rush, though. Let the seed of thought be planted. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
V For Vendetta
I enjoyed reading your comment on Arcayne's talkpage. Very amusing and astonishingly accurate actually. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! :) It was Arcayne's "good friend" that triggered the memory of "very good honor", and with him referring to an editor that, well, collaborated with us at Children of Men as "V", the quote seemed very appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I was reading this article, I noticed you saved it from deletion. Have you thought of taking it to GA? — Realist2 02:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have not thought about nominating it as a Good Article; it is not one on my watchlist. I think I rescued it after seeing it at the deletion sorting for film-related articles. It is a little bit short for me to really pursue as a GA, not to mention a little redundant with the film articles. (The Descent 2 might have more coverage about these creatures, by the way, so it may be worth holding off till the film comes out.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is indeed true, you could probably expand it following that film, and have enough info for a strong GA. I think with a little expansion—there's only so much you can write on the topic—it could become a GA. Happy editing Eric. — Realist2 04:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Happy editing to you, too! Thanks for reminding me of that article. One of my few ventures into article rescue territory. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is indeed true, you could probably expand it following that film, and have enough info for a strong GA. I think with a little expansion—there's only so much you can write on the topic—it could become a GA. Happy editing Eric. — Realist2 04:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Request
Hi Erik - I am wondering if you could help me out with this Bollywood film article: Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi. If you check its history, you'll see that this article is a frequent target of vandalism by unregistered or new users. I would like to request semi-protection for the article but am uncertain of who to ask. I thought perhaps you might have some ideas on the topic. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:RFPP is what you want, though I am not sure how they will assess the anonymous edits and the frequency of them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's it! Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. :) Hope that the film article can be somewhat shielded from the vandalism. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's it! Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
For a while now I've been toying with the idea of taking this template to TfD, and noticed that you yourself intended to do the same about a year or so ago. I saw the deletion argument you have in your sandbox, and was wondering what became of this and what your current thoughts are? PC78 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was not sure if my argument was convincing enough to encourage a consensus for deletion. The reasoning is obviously a little more intricate; it's less grounded in policies and guidelines and more about if such infoboxes are encyclopedic for film articles. In a very limited sense they are, but they don't provide enough insight (and are usually culled from IMDb). Feel free to take the template to TfD and even emulate the arguments I made. I'd only suggest making it shorter than what I wrote because my feeling was that I could say more with less words if I ever took the template to TfD. Let me know what you decide to do! —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
While I'm thinking about it...
... is User:PC78/future films any good to you? If not I'll bin it. It's quite a bit out of date by now and largely redundant, and I have no real intention of going through it again myself. PC78 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you can retire it. The tracking categories are more useful in the temporal sense. I remember trying to maintain Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Release dates, and it was pretty tedious. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Also...
...check out this bot-created list I've just requested. It lists all articles tagged with {{Future film}} but without a Future-Class assessment, and vice versa. :) PC78 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is enormously useful! Definitely will have to go through that list to tag and assess correctly. You should make this a departmental page with instructions on how to ask for an updated version if deemed necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILMS Questionnaire
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
New Moon
Oh Thank You for telling me. Will it be okay for me to creat the page in my sand box then? ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- Absolutely! I'm doing the same with a film that will hopefully start filming in February called The Book of Eli; see User:Erik/The Book of Eli. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Franklyn
Did you edit the page? Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am trying to convey an accurate sense of Franklyn's plot and its characters, and add to the page in a useful way. Eva Green's character does not have multiple personalities. The premise is completely incorrect. Ewan McGregor left the project because he broke his leg and thus had scheduling problems, not because it "didn't go into production as planned." As you keep deleting much of what I quote/cite, can you please suggest what you will accept? I can't figure out why you deleted the location info culled from Rotten Tomatoes, for instance??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarrant on Wiki (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Fink
I don't remember seeing your email, but I'm at school so perhaps it's waiting for me at home. I'll check when I can. Cheers! (And thanks for fixing the poster image info.) Scartol • Tok 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just a note to let you know that I've added a number of references to the article you sent. Many thanks! Scartol • Tok 17:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
TT image
I just wanted to show you the new image I was able to get permission for of Cruise. I already added it to the collage on the article (File:TropicThunderDowneyCruise.png). Flickr really has been helpful these last few weeks. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Very nice! I think that is a great improvement. Did you see the discussion at WT:FILM with David Shankbone's link? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I'm surprised there hasn't been that much other feedback on the topic. I read most of the blog on the topic and it was pretty informative. Did you hear about our fellow coordinator Ecoleetage? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm reading the relevant pages now. I'm a bit surprised, but considering it was the third RfA, there must have been a pretty strong desire for adminship on his part. I'm sure Wikipedia Review will have a field day with all this, if that isn't happening already... I'm less sure about pursuing a replacement, like Sephiroth BCR suggested. What do you think? (As for the discussion about images, I think discussion in general has slowed down this week, what with school and work being back underway.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed what happened when I looked at my watchlist and Eco's name was red-linked and then went from there. Seeing some of the questions and backlash some of these RfA's get, I'm glad mine was done with no major issues (of course I'm not that controversial of an editor, or so I think). I think we're fine with what we have, considering the number of coordinators. However, if the majority of the other coordinators are up for electing another one then it won't bother me. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm reading the relevant pages now. I'm a bit surprised, but considering it was the third RfA, there must have been a pretty strong desire for adminship on his part. I'm sure Wikipedia Review will have a field day with all this, if that isn't happening already... I'm less sure about pursuing a replacement, like Sephiroth BCR suggested. What do you think? (As for the discussion about images, I think discussion in general has slowed down this week, what with school and work being back underway.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I'm surprised there hasn't been that much other feedback on the topic. I read most of the blog on the topic and it was pretty informative. Did you hear about our fellow coordinator Ecoleetage? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ranking system
Hi Erik, thanks for catching the grade issue on Slumdog Millionaire. I wonder if you could clarify the system for me so that I get it right in the future. I am a bit confused as to how the two banners can have different rankings. Should the other be changed to "Start"? Could you also clarify what needs to happen for the article to reach "B" status? I looked at the guidelines but that didn't help very much. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Quality scale, and if you look at {{Film}}, there is a B-Class checklist to follow. For example, see the talk page for Valkyrie. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. Ok, I did read through it, though I'm still not certain I understand what the article still needs. Anyway, my goal was to coordinate the two banners. I'll let others from the Wikifilm projects figure it out. Thanks for your help. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- So in going through the checklist, do you think that Slumdog Millionaire fits the B-class criteria? If so, include
class=B|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yesin the template. It's a somewhat formal step to show that the article was examined for the criteria. Without the step, it can't be determined if someone really went through the checklist, which was why I reverted the new assessment. Hope that makes sense! Remember that this is per the standards of WikiProject Films, so I don't know if other WikiProjects require such a checklist. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)- Well Erik, I really do trust your judgment since you have been working on more film articles than I have. In my opinion, it does fulfill the "B" level, but perhaps the fact that you are hesitating means that I am missing something. You might want to check with some other editors first. It does look odd for the two banners to have different rankings, however. I think that they should both read either "Start" or "B." I'll leave that for you and other editors to decide. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't revert the new assessment because I disagreed with it. Just did not see proof that the article was evaluated to match the B-class criteria. You say you looked at the relevant pages, so you can proceed to add these parameters to the template. I have no problem with it being B-class, though I think it has a way to go before becoming Good Article. A film that's been this popular will be pretty well-examined... the headlines I placed on the talk page were some time ago, so who knows how much more coverage there has been since. For now, though, B-class is suitable. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Since you reverted my edit, however, if I go ahead and make these changes it will look like the beginnings of an edit war. So if you want to revert your revert, that is fine. Otherwise, I'll leave it for another editor. I appreciate your comments, however, because they have made me more aware of how the system works. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that would have been a problem. :) We could easily point to this discussion reflecting the resolution if someone else expressed concern about edit warring. I've gone ahead and reverted myself, also adding the parameters to check off all the criteria. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- lol :-) This is why I voted for you twice as film coordinator. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that would have been a problem. :) We could easily point to this discussion reflecting the resolution if someone else expressed concern about edit warring. I've gone ahead and reverted myself, also adding the parameters to check off all the criteria. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Since you reverted my edit, however, if I go ahead and make these changes it will look like the beginnings of an edit war. So if you want to revert your revert, that is fine. Otherwise, I'll leave it for another editor. I appreciate your comments, however, because they have made me more aware of how the system works. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't revert the new assessment because I disagreed with it. Just did not see proof that the article was evaluated to match the B-class criteria. You say you looked at the relevant pages, so you can proceed to add these parameters to the template. I have no problem with it being B-class, though I think it has a way to go before becoming Good Article. A film that's been this popular will be pretty well-examined... the headlines I placed on the talk page were some time ago, so who knows how much more coverage there has been since. For now, though, B-class is suitable. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well Erik, I really do trust your judgment since you have been working on more film articles than I have. In my opinion, it does fulfill the "B" level, but perhaps the fact that you are hesitating means that I am missing something. You might want to check with some other editors first. It does look odd for the two banners to have different rankings, however. I think that they should both read either "Start" or "B." I'll leave that for you and other editors to decide. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- So in going through the checklist, do you think that Slumdog Millionaire fits the B-class criteria? If so, include
- Hmm. Ok, I did read through it, though I'm still not certain I understand what the article still needs. Anyway, my goal was to coordinate the two banners. I'll let others from the Wikifilm projects figure it out. Thanks for your help. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Curious incident
Erik, regarding the curious incident of the coordinator who was stalking, has anyone noticed that extensive googling the two names of the public school system employees fails to place them together at the same school (one doesn't show up any place (no class pages, staff lists), and the principal appears to have retired recently)? Inconclusive, but I'm with the guys waiting until proof more concrete than the unsubstantiated "verbal" accusation of the editor is examined. Hope you've been doing well, by the way.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I thought that his admission was pretty damning. A checkuser was done to make sure that Eco2 was coming from the same IP as Ecoleetage, and it was confirmed. What remains questionable? Is there a conspiracy afoot? ;) I've been well, though... kind of editing lightly these days. We'll see if I can get back into it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Defiance
You were reverted, in defiance (pardon the expression) of WP:NOR. I was going to trim back the "inaccuracies" section, but there seems to be little point in doing so given the situation in that article. I'm not sure how to proceed as I don't have too much experience dealing with defiance (pardon the expression again) of Wiki rules. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...
I just discovered that you reverted some vandalism on my userpage a couple weeks ago... thanks! I totally didn't even realize it until just now, so that could have obviously led to a somewhat embarrassing two weeks! In related news, I now have my userpage watchlisted... :) –Fierce Beaver (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The Wrestler Question
Okay, so you have reverted my changes on the page for The Wrestler claiming that there is no correlation between the death of Paul Fuchs and the movie itself. You wrote, "Revert coverage that is irrelevant to the film; we do not cover such incidents unless there is a connection to the film, like The Dark Knight and Heath Ledger's death."
I fail to see the difference between the two situations.
I must question why this article keeps getting taken down after such mainstream outlets as NY Post and Washington Examiner have picked up on the story. User:Hpchuckyc (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- What happened to Paul Fuchs is tragic, but it has no bearing on the film. If it was not for the film itself, his death would not have been highlighted by the media. Heath Ledger's death launched a firestorm of commentary about whether or not he finished post-production, about how marketing would be portrayed, whether or not more people would flock to see it because of his death, and if he would be awarded posthumously. There is an enormous difference between the two issues. I would recommend creating an article about Paul Fuchs, and if readers of The Wrestler are interested in that particular actor, they can follow the link and see his background, including how he died. It is not pertinent to the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Will do. I thought that I saw a page had been created for him, but was deleted. I will put one up again. I wasn't mad, just confused. Haven't been doing this long. I appreciate your help.User:Hpchuckyc (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was deleted; so it may be worth looking at WP:BIO to see if the press that has been received about his death amounts to enough notability for this figure on Wikipedia. Happy editing! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Erik
I think the following post got overlooked in the lengthy discussion re: images in film articles, so I hope you don't mind my directing my question to you on this page.
Re: Tropic Thunder, I agree the images of Downey and Cruise in and out of makeup are appropriate because they show the lengths to which they went to portray their respective characters. I understand why the image of Stiller signing autographs is relevant, because there's an extensive section about promotion and appearances in the article. The image of protesters also seems appropriate because it relates to the section about controversy.
But how does the image of a set constructed for a scene ultimately deleted from the film enhance the article? I could understand if the article included a detailed discussion about why this particular set was built and/or why it was decided not to include the scene in the film, but nothing in the article relates specifically to this image at all. It's my understanding that such images should not be included because they amount to nothing more than window dressing.
I'm trying to understand why some images are considered relevant and therefore acceptable while others are deleted for not meeting Wikipedia requirements, but I keep getting contradictory explanations. Thank you for your input! LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think Nehrams2020 just gave you a pretty good answer at WT:FILM. :) Let me know if you want clarification on anything else! —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
WALL-E
Hi erik, do you think is is worth the wile to look walle one more time today, because it's rather late by now?Sha-Sanio (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I going to look for it, before it is too late, im absolutely determinedSha-Sanio (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sha-Shanio, I am not sure what you are asking me. Can you ask again in a different way? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
What kind of different way do you mean, I absolutely don't understand what you expect me to do.Sha-Sanio (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- What do you need help with? —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add some information to the article, that I found on the pixar home page. You can take a look at on my sandbox. Is that what you expect me to do or what else should be done???Sha-Sanio (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you referring to User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox#Wall-e? It helps if you link to the specific sandbox you mean. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No, The Sandbox is called User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Revolutionary RoadSha-Sanio (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Sha-Sanio (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this enough or is there something else that you need to have explained?Sha-Sanio (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have also written about the recent nominations that wall-e received for the BAFTA-Awards. Is there anything else that you want to have in a different way?Sha-Sanio (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well,Erik if you were here you could go watching Revolutionary Road together with me, but as you don't wan't to come, it's up to you. I can't force you, whoever you were.Sha-Sanio (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have prepared something on the DVD-release of Wall-e and would like to add to the article. If you would like to take a look at it please check my Sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Wall-e. If you like you can tell me what you think about it.Sha-Sanio (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like you have some useful details so far! A couple of points I have in mind: 1) Remember that per MOS:FILM#Home media, we try to minimize detailing home media (like DVD and Blu-ray) because otherwise we might sound promotional. Most shopping websites detail what is in the home media, anyway, so features should be summarized and any details should be encyclopedic. Also, I have not really looked at WALL-E closely. Have you checked to make sure that no information overlaps? You may also want to start a new discussion at Talk:WALL-E to find other editors who work on the film article and get their feedback. They may be better points of contact than I am. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Only on Wikipedia....
...does a desire to obtain free images turn into a controversy, ay? *sigh* The ole' "No good deed" Deceased editor User:Jeffpw's mother wrote to me. She doesn't edit Wikipedia at all, but she has taken an interest in following some of its inner politics (she also used to hear about it from her son). This is what she wrote:
I was just reading your user page. Doesn't it become exhausting to get in all these misunderstandings and then have to work so hard to straighten them out? Not just you, but it seems like people are always taking umbrage at something or other and by the time you go round and round and round to straighten it out, does anyone even care any more?
lol. --David Shankbone 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia can be a beast. :) I say that in the sense that it attracts so many people, and within that, the opinions can be so diverse. Dealing with these issues is why I'm attached at the hip to MOS:FILM, so it can be referred to for most major issues if there is a disagreement of sorts. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Valkyrie
Thanks for helping me out on the Valkyrie article. I didn't mean to cause trouble with that empty section. The Korean, U.K. and other European releases are about to open, so we'll come back to that when they happen. I hope the premiere protests aren't given too much space in the article, even though they are interesting and quite unusual for movie. I guess it will balance out when the box office results start to flesh out the section. --129.241.151.71 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- No trouble at all! I had the same prospect in mind, but I was waiting for some content to show up. Hopefully we can get it started soon since the film comes out in a lot of territories in this coming week. As for the premiere protests, I was hesitant about covering the protests at the American premieres, but since it has also taken place in Germany, it is a topic worth covering. We may need to revise the passages for neutral wording and a more encyclopedic tone (not sure if the bunny suit really adds anything). Thanks for your help, though! You can see some other discussions at Talk:Valkyrie (film) if you want to share thoughts about other aspects of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- He had an Eyepatch just like Stauffenberg. Heh. It would work if it was trimmed down just to say what issues they're protesting. --129.241.151.71 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, terminology has changed since I was at school. I always grouped Mexico as part of Central America. Do you think it's worth just combining box office and reviews information into American response and German response? Alientraveller (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure; I think that the German response can be highlighted in its own subsection. This does not necessarily mean the rest of the content needs to be subsectioned, too. Someone added the "American critics" heading to "Critical reception", and I was thinking it was kind of unnecessary. American critics, Australian critics, British critics, etc. do not really need to be highlighted as much as the German critics. German response either way seems like it should be a heading easily discernible for readers. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
RE: Portal for WP:FILM activities
I'm still not entirely sure what you're suggesting. Do you mean a navigational template to be transcluded onto other pages (and if so which pages)? In what way would it be different to either {{WPFILMS Sidebar}} or {{WPFILMS Announcements}}? PC78 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Benjamin Button Film
Hello mate,
I have it on good authority that it is based on a true story.
Have a great day, CJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.102.4 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Up in the Air (film)
Erik,
Thank you for letting me know. I've archived Up in the Air (film) on my user space. I probably was premature in creating the article. However, casting for the film are getting a lot of press in the St. Louis, Missouri area.
Since I have the article archived, what action should I take?
On an unrelated matter, I am truly amazed with the amount of great working User:Steve has done on Changeling (film). I already awarded him a barnstar for his efforts on the article. Would it be inappropriate to award Steve a second barnstar?
Sincerely,
Dan Dassow --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest waiting until it is verified that filming has begun, then move the article into the mainspace. In the meantime, since you are the primary author, you can add {{db-author}} to the article and leave a note at the AFD discussion that you have userfied it for the time being. As for Steve's work on Changeling, a second barnstar would not be inappropriate. It is a fine piece of work indeed. I am sure that he will be modest about it, though... —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your guidance. I blanked out the article, added {{db-author}} and left a note to that effect on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Up_in_the_Air_(film). --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Titanic
I have SO wanted to do this [2]. Good on ya! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully others agree with my boldness... I thought that the "Cast" section at the film article was a pretty decent length already! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Tropic Thunder
Are you supporting promotion to A-class? I can't proceed unless we have a support margin of three or more. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you can, please take a quick look over the whole article since a lot has changed since your initial review. Also there is a current discussion on the talk page on how to handle the faux trailers. If you're busy with school, no need to spend too much time on this article, you've already helped me quite a bit! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
New future films icon
-
Old -
New
I requested a new future films icon which uses the same film reel image as the project. What do you think? PC78 (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that it is a good improvement to provide consistency! Do we need to replace every instance of the original icon with this one? Or can the original be overwritten (or moved elsewhere to make room)? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've already replaced the icon in {{future film}}; to be honest I don't think the original was being used in many other places. There's that userbox on your page though... :) PC78 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ludwig Beck
Hello, thanks for adding the information about Ludwig Beck's death to Valkyrie (film). You said in your edit summary that the information came from Reader's Digest. I was wondering if you could be more specific so we can cite the specific issue? It would help to fill out a {{cite news}} template with the author, the title, the volume, the issue, and the page(s). Please let me know if you can provide this information! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was a book. The Reader's Digest Illustrated Story of World War II or something like that. It was a compilation of articles written by various authors. It had an article by Fuchida about Pearl Harbor, excerpts from Mein Kampth, and other articles. It just had an article by a French author titled "The Plot to Kill Hitler". Emperor001 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I do not know if we can use the book to cite that detail for the article, since I assume that it was published before the film was ever made. Per MOS:FILM#Adaptations, we need real-world context for such differences, such as a reliable source making the connection between the film and the actual history. Otherwise, editors can pick up a history book about the plot and write a thesis comparing and contrasting details with the film! :) Let me see if I can find a reliable source noticing the difference between the film and the actual events... —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was published over ten years before the movie. If you want, I could type out a quote from the book, we just wouldn't have a link to it. Emperor001 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- What I meant about an alternative reliable source is to find a source that is covering the film and notes the difference in Ludwig Beck's fate. Otherwise, it's easy to pick out all the differences, from major to minor. Using sources that can make these connections explicitly makes the differences or similarities discriminate. If you look at the sourced paragraphs under "Historical accuracy", they all relate directly to the film. A book ten years before the film can't make that explicit connection. What we could do is search for the figure's name and keywords from the film (Tom Cruise, Bryan Singer, etc.) to see if we can pull up a source to be used. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Dustinbin Baby review
Yes, I am planning to review it, I just tagged it prior to reading so my work wouldn't be in vain. - Mgm|(talk) 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Twilight
Hi Erik, I finally got around to posting the info I was gathering on Twilight (1998 film). There are still some tweaks I see where I can improve my edits, but for the most part I've given it a good try. I won't take any suggestions as an insult, I am new to this style of writing, as most of my pre-Wikipedia efforts were more editorial in nature. I know I have a tendency to use flowery words and all, so I have to make a conscious effort to keep things "encyclopedic". You also mentioned that you had references that might help the article, so anything you want to offer would be greatly appreciated.
I'm considering also trying to improve "The Shootist" (John Wayne) when I get time. Hope my efforts have had a positive affect. All my best ... Ched (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, glad that you were interested in taking up my offer for assistance with the film article! I poked around a little bit for resources about this 1998 film, and I think that there is going to be mainly "Production" and "Reception" details. Not so much on "Themes", though! Do you have access to any newspaper databases? It is better to use print reviews because they are more acceptable than online-only reviews. Have you had a chance to look at our article guidelines? One issue I'd like to point out is the usage of IMDb's trivia page in the article. Since these pages are user-submitted and barely monitored, they are not considered reliable. What you can do, though, is use keywords from a bit of trivia about the film and search for them to see if you can come across a reliable source. Let me know if you have any specific questions or want to know about some aspect of the film which I can try to search for! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Erik. At the moment, No, I don't have access to newspaper databases. I applied online for library access, and should be getting a card shortly. The primary problem is that I don't have easy access to the Carnegie Library due to hours and distance, and the couple libraries in local areas are small community types that don't usually carry the volume of info I would want. I agree about the IMDB items, and have wondered why they are so heavily relied upon. Also, thank you for the link to MOS:Film, no I had not seen that yet. I've been primarily trying to learn the WP:MOS, and the proposed fiction policy for my guidelines. I'll read through the link you sent. Thanks for your time. Best of luck in school work. Ched (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)