Jump to content

User talk:Erik/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

American Beauty

How are you searching the Variety website for those American Beauty cites? I intended to throw the film's name into their search engine, sort by date, find the earliest mention of the film and work back from there to build a comprehensive "Development" section. This has worked exceedingly well for me for other films, but since Variety changed their website it isn't working properly. I can get as far back as 2002, but going beyond page 30 or so leads to nothing but a blank results page, despite it telling me there are hundreds of articles yet to be displayed. Steve T • C 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm searching via LexisNexis Academic. I assume that this database is more stable than trying to search the archives through their website. It's always been tricky to search via their website, so I prefer to resort to LNA. FYI, the hundreds of articles are likely brief mentions of how the film was nominated or won so-and-so awards, especially around 1999-2000. Any in-depth articles other than what I've included are already shared with you (up to March 2000). I still need to go through The Hollywood Reporter, too. If you want me to search for anything specific, let me know, and I take a look. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it; the kinds of things I was looking for was more the mortar of the section rather than anything more weighty. The early, pre-production Variety articles tend to be useful for early cast and crew information, who joined on what date, who was considered for a particular role—the kind of thing that the in-depth articles after release tend to neglect. Steve T • C 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I did not search prior to the film's premiere; I refined the results to be everything September 1999 and afterward. I can do the opposite and find out what was being reported early on. Let me do that, then... I can drop the information in the "Production" section, and you can interweave it as you see fit. Any big articles I come across, I can share with you. Just trying to take advantage of resources to which I have better access. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry, it seems like you've been doing all the leg work on this one so far. For now, I think I'll go take a look at a those American Cinematographer articles, see if I can pull my weight a bit better. :) Steve T • C 21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's no problem. The way I see it, it's a relay. :) I do a bit of theatrical run, you do a bit of production, I do a bit more of theatrical run... back and forth. I'm overdoing the "Theatrical run" section a bit because when we can cut down on it later on rather than going back to the archives to fill any gaps we may perceive. I was a bit surprised at how Box Office Mojo didn't cover the foreign part well; a lot of what I added is new. Not even sure if I will cite the foreign total in the article. I'm going to see if I can get Xeroxed copies of the books' chapters... I've only begun to realize the last few months how decent my university is in terms of film literature, sigh. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 13 (film)

Hello, I noticed that you removed the soundtrack listing from the article. Please help me understand how it violates WikiProject Albums' Track listing guideline so that I may avoid doing this again to film articles that do not have a seperate soundtrack page. DrNegative (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Erik

On April 4, I removed a few paragraphs about post-Code films from Pre-Code Hollywood since the article is about American filmmaking prior to the inception of the Hays Code. These changes were reverted by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, for reasons he has cited on my talk page. Maybe I'm missing something, but his logic escapes me. He seems determined to combine facts pertaining to two different eras into one article, rather than leaving them in the individual articles in which I feel they belong. I'm not sure if I simply am not making my position clear, but it seems apparent he's not understanding what I'm trying to convey, i.e. details about pre-Code Hollywood belong in that article, details about developments that took place while the code was in effect belong in Hays Code, and whatever transpired after the code was abolished and the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system went into effect belongs in that article. If you care to weigh in, please feel free to do so. Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am kind of touch-and-go this weekend. I will try to help in the next day or two, but no promises. Hope you can still work something out! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/U2 3D

This article already has support from myself and (seemingly) MelicansMatkin, and your concerns seem to have been more or less dealt with. Unless you have any specific objections, I intend to close the review and pass the article for A-Class in the next few days or so. Regards. PC78 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Erik's Day!

Erik has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Erik's Day!
For your indispensable work with WP:FILMS,
enjoy being the star of the day, dear Erik!

Signed,
Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

--Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Film+wiki research

Hi Erik,I'm researching films and their wikis and I'd like to talk with the contributors. E.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cat_Soup#Nekojiru-sou_and_wiki I will come back to this page. Thank you; and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.252.62 (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Cat Soup and have watchlisted the page. We can talk about research for the topic there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Perhaps you can help me. I feel like I'm going around in circles with another user named Taran Wanderer T.W. at Talk: The Rescuers about the edits made. Can you see if there's a better way to communicate with her, or if I'm completely off base here? I don't know how else to explain it, and I'm growing tired of dealing with it. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. Cactusjump (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what needs addressing at this point? I'm not clear what the dispute is. From what I gather, there are no articles for the source materials on which the film is based. If they were created, the characters in that medium could be represented in their own way. Readers can compare how the book(s) describe the characters with how the film describes the characters. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
TW appeared upset by the edits made and some articles being merged in to this one. She hasn't responded in a while so I'm hoping this means she's content with my replies. I just felt as if I was repeating myself and continually having to justify all the fixes made to the article. We'll see what happens. Cactusjump (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Future films list

Hi, I was going to nominate this template for deletion when I saw this discussion. Does this mean you don't mind/want to template to be deleted? It still is in use on some articles although I was tempted to remove it. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I meant to get to it, but the past few weeks have been too busy for such follow-up. I removed the template from where I added it, and I added {{db-author}} to it to have it deleted. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, the template is deleted. Also, you might be interested in this RFC. Garion96 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tender Mercies

Hey, it's Hunter Kahn, from the Tender Mercies FAC. As per some of the discussion there, I've started a Themes and Analyses section. As I said in the FAC, it's right now heavily dependent on one source and I am going to work on adding more, but I was hoping you could take a look at what's there now and let me provide me some feedback as to whether this is the correct direction I should be heading in. Thank you! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 18:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Thor (2010 film)

I have nominated Thor (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn twinkle seems borked, it didn';t list. I'll try again,. because it's a 2011 film, no need for the 2010 listing. ThuranX (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support on that, should be easy at this point. Seemed the easiest way to clean things up. Also seems to me there had been more there a few months ago, did it get speedied at some point? ThuranX (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "more there"? Do you mean similar redirects? —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I mean... I recall some months back turning a Thor film page into a redirect. I thought it was that one, and wondered if it was at some point deleted. ThuranX (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't mean Thor live-action (film), do you? (Wasn't sure since you edited it May 11.) The "WhatLinksHere" page doesn't seem to show anything else, though the disambiguation page Thor (film) may have been the source of some shuffling? —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
that's it, but I would've sworn it was long ago, not a week. been a busy horrible week for me at the job though, so there ya go. We shoudl probably nom that too, as at best it would be Thor (live-action film)ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest bypassing RfD in this case and asking an admin to delete it since it's a completely implausible phrase to enter, as opposed to Thor (2010 film), which could be argued to be ignored for its "cheapness" as a redirect. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Future film#Rewording

Your comments on this proposal would be welcome! :) PC78 (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox for Thor (film)

I wish to create a sandbox for this film to be used for the actual article when filming begins. Where is the best place to create one (my userpage or somewhere else) for all of the project members and other wikipedians to contribute to it? Also where should I post links to it so that they may be aware of its existence? - TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat/Thor (film) would probably be the best spot. When the film becomes a reality, this can then be moved to the previous location. Links inviting comment or contributions may be posted anywhere in Wikipedia talk space; perhaps WT:COMICS and WT:FILM would be the most appropriate venues, or you could contact editors with whom you have worked in the past who you feel would be interested in helping you maintain the page as new information is released. All the best, Steve T • C 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I just got it started. Feel free to contribute. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Prestige

I'm neither the original author of the material you removed nor the least bit concerned with its deletion from the article, but I am curious about your rationale of "unreliable reviews". I mean, how do you get more reliable than Howard Waldrop, Neil Gaiman, Gary Westfahl and Locus? I must be missing something. If so, what is it? Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the review that was co-penned by Lawrence Person because I had reason to believe that his opinions were being solicited across Wikipedia as if they were of great importance. (His article was deleted.) For a film like The Prestige, I had doubt that Person's review was added in an objective manner. A film like The Prestige would attract reviews from critics of highest authority (major newspapers, film journals, etc), so Person's review seemed out of place there. Its removal was part of a series of such edits, including a similar one at Clover (creature). Does this clarify anything at all? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about who was soliciting what opinions or for what reason, nor do I particularly care. When that happens, we generally sanction the editor not the source. The so-called "critics of highest authority" are probably no more qualified or notable to review the film than Howard Waldrop and Lawrence Person, and considering their role in the field of Science fiction studies and the combined expertise of the editorial staff, I'm finding it difficult to think of a more reliable source on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I operated under the assumption that its addition was tainted by a conflict of interest and thus removed it. Film articles also gravitate toward print sources, so an online review does not have the greatest merit. (They're more tolerable for films that are direct-to-DVD type, where you'd be hard-pressed to find authoritative reviews in print.) It's not like The Prestige was hard-up for additional opinions, having quite a few already. Looking at the British Film Institute's Film Index International, there are better articles at Film Review and Sight & Sound -- the latter has this description: "A critical reading of Christopher Nolan's The PRESTIGE about and structured as a staged magic trick, a device widely explored since stage magician Georges Méliès pioneered the idea of 'movie magic' in the early 20th century." That's what I was trying to suggest in regard to authority. However, if you feel that it is valuable enough, feel free to restore it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to strongly disagree with you here, Erik. Locus Magazine has been in print for 42 years, and is a key, reliable source in science fiction studies. Locus Online has been active on the internet since 1997 and is also an important digital resource for this topic, and their writers are professionals in their field. More importantly, Locus has followed this story for a long time, beginning with two published reviews of Priest's book (Nov 1995, Apr 1997), a published interview with the author who talks about the (then upcoming) film, (June 2006), and two online reviews of the film (22 October 2006, 23 October 2006). Simply dismissing these online reviews as not having the "greatest merit" strikes me as off the mark. Ok, you don't know who Gary Westfahl (science fiction scholar) and Howard Waldrop (science fiction author) are, but actual scholars and authors writing about a science fiction film based on a science fiction book in the print/online version of Locus, are considered far more reliable (authoritative and relevant) than film critics. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Information is placed online effortlessly compared to placing information in print, which is why I said what I did. Sounds like the review will suffice, based on your explanation of the publication's history. Like I said, I focused on removing contributions related to Lawrence Person since it seemed to me that there was a conflict of interest going on. As an objective party to this, you can restore the review as you see fit. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: ST:TMP

Thanks a bunch. I hope to tackle Star Trek: First Contact next, but will probably have to wait until I get access to my university library again. I would knock old FAs, but I'm painfully aware some of my old video game articles are rather middling and I have to go back and spruce them up at some point :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. Banlieue 13

Girolama already messaged me about that, and I see my error now. I'll read the page you linked though; I've never heard of that before, so thanks. Happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

New Layout at MoS Film

Sorry it took me so long, but I have finally replied to your last message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#New layout -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Choose your own sourcing adventure

Aside from a regression back into the dilliances of video gaming, I'm working on the nitty-gritty painful exploits of writing critical reception for Star Trek: First Contact. I won't be able to hunt down any of the sourcing for the most part until I get within close physical proximity of my library next term, but I'm working on it :) Anyhow, I was wondering if you would be up to pulling together another list of refs when you have the chance (there is in no way any sort of reasonable deadline to get this done, it's just when you do.) I really don't know which Star Trek film I want to work on after First Contact, so I'm offering the selecting task to you; there's the metaphysical one, the one with the whales, the one that almost killed the franchise, the one Ronald Moore apologized for, the one where they search for the fountain of youth and come up against some mean plastic surgery-crazed aliens, and the one that broke the odd-numbered curse, in a bad way (I'm leaving the reboot to Alientraveller and those chaps.) Pick one, if you wish! Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

When I get back to the States, I will put lists of references for all these films on their articles' talk pages. :) Partially because since I am done with school, I think access to university resources expires by this fall. Since this is the case, you can ask about lists of references for other films. I will probably be able to do all this around mid-July. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Star Trek III, Star Trek IV, Star Trek V, Star Trek VII, Star Trek IX are the only other articles that I really feel I'll need access to a print database for; once I'm done with those, I very much doubt I'll ever want to work on another film article ever again, so if you have the time (and the access) a list for those guys would be appreciated. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking in

Hey Erik. Just wanted to say thanks to keeping an eye on Watchmen for the past few months. I'm still not ready to come back to full editing status on Wikipedia, but maybe sometime soon, who knows. I haven't looked at the Watchmen article since I stopped editing it (and I'm almost afraid to look, given how stressful it became near the end), but let me know if any particular problems have come up, or if you need to verify something I cited. I'm just curious as to how it's been holding up. Once again, it'll probably be a while before I come back to that article, so I appreciate all that you've done. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted some unnecessary changes to the article, and I don't think much has changed. An editor added a "Parody" section about a comic that parodied Watchmen, but I'm not sure how important it is to have its own section. Additionally, it looks like there has been reverts to plot-bloated character articles (instead of the previous compression to Characters of Watchmen). If you come back and want to undo this, let me know, and I'll support the deed. Otherwise, though, the article has been just fine. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I redirected the individual character articles back to the collective one. I explained on the talk page that the article of the main topic was heavily rewritten and that there was no so-called "underdevelopment" about the individual characters. Just not enough to warrant their own pages. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PSTS and films

Thanks. Yeah... I am beginning to think this is a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT too. Still willing to give it another try, but my patience is running out. When someone tells me I am wrong about a policy I helped write it is hard to assume good faith. Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I got you wrong on that one, Erik. I was obviously convinced you were making a mistake but I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. Thanks for hanging in there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/July 2009 article improvement drive

Hope you had a great trip and are happy to return to the joys and pains of Wikipedia. The July article improvement drive isn't going as expected, but I guess I did kind of rush it in at the last minute. Maybe awards need to be mentioned at the beginning to inspire members to work on improving content. There's still half the month left though, so it's possible editors are still working on articles and waiting to nominate them. I just wanted to see if you wanted to recommend any changes to it or add an article of your own (if you wish). If not, no worries. Again, welcome back (although you didn't really leave! I'm still waiting for the day that I can go on vacation and not check my watchlist once, maybe I'd need to go to a deserted island...). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome mat! :) The return has had a few more pains than joys, but hopefully it will clear up. I still need to get back into a communal mentality, especially with the circle of coordinators. Just wanted to take care of my pet projects first! Fight Club to FAC soon enough! About the article improvement drive, I think that the WikiProject still needs to grow together. I agree that awards could be useful. I shrugged them off some time ago, but it may be a source of pride for some editors to earn them. I'm sure with the theme of film, we could come up with some clever ones, like director's chair awards or Hollywood Star of Fame awards. (The latter may be better for WP:ACTOR, though, haha.) I'm about to head to bed, so let me review the improvement drive page tomorrow and share my thoughts. (It was kind of nice to get a break... a bigger one than I've ever had the past couple of years, really. Good to be back, though!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
How certain do you feel that there are editors out there who are working on articles that could wind up on the list? I know Wildroot has to be up to something, being the ridiculously prolific GA editor he is. :) I can nominate Apt Pupil (film) as a Good Article; most of my remaining concerns are to make the article comprehensive, where it's pretty broad for GA status at this point. Fight Club could wind up on the list; depends on how long the FAC process will take. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you think Apt Pupil qualifies as a GAN? It's been mostly complete before July; I added a few more details this month. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure developing more dedicated awards or offering them at the beginning would have been beneficial. The goal of this, at least for me (I knew I should have brought this up to the coordinator page to fine tune it first), was to see if people were willing/able to start working on article in a month's time and bring it up to one of the higher classes. The initial goal was to have editors start working on a new article this month (for example, I had never worked on Forrest Gump before), and nominate them. However, since it seems like there will not be that many articles, it's probably fine to have any article included that reached a higher level. At some point, based on how we see the results of this and other goals we have, we can officially start a contest-like drive where editors do work together/independently to develop better articles. Maybe we need to start with a collaboration of the week/two weeks/month first and then go from there. With a quick glance, I don't see any issues with Apt Pupil so feel free to nominate it. It would be great to see Fight Club make its way to FAC soon, you definitely have put a lot of work into it. I don't really know if other editors have their own projects they are working on (I've mostly been focusing on Sweeps this month as I'm trying to conclude my last ~50 or so reviews and move on to other things). I had figured most editing in our project would take place in the summer when people have more vacation days and school's out. We'll see if anything else happens with the drive. If not, we can rearrange the details, provide better guidance, or try something different. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thanks a bunch. I've got access to JSTOR and LexisNexis, which is good enough for getting 75% of the stuff, but I need the bibliographic information for all the Cinefantastique/ et al that your databases have. I've got a good year or more's work left to finish up the remaining 6 articles, but this goes a long way to helping. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice with films and reality

Saw your questions on my talk page... You are definitely on the right track when it comes to discribing historical inaccuracies in films ... Suggest you raise this at WT:No original research or at WP:NORN. By the way... we recently had some discussion on a similar issue at the NOR Noticeboard (see: Wikipedia:NORN#Factual accuracy of The Great Escape) results were inconclusive. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite... what I said was that it was ok as long as all you are doing is stating "the film depicts X occuring <cite to film>, while RS says X did not occur <cite to reliable source>". In this case, you are not passing judgement on either source, you are simply describing what they say. However, to say one or the other is inaccurate (done in this case in the very title of the article), I think you do need a third reliable source that notes the difference and reaches that conclusion. (and my final opinion was that I thought the entire article was little more than one giant WP:TRIVIA violation... We don't expect a work of fiction to be historically accurate (if it were historically accurate we would call it a documentary), so it is trivial to mention them.
That said... looking back through the NORN discussion, I don't think a firm consensus was reached. This is why I suggest you raise the issue at the main NOR talk page. I think the issue needs further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lemony Snicket

I addressed your concerns and I think the article is ready. Wildroot (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have finished addressing your additional concerns, but I'm somewhat skeptical with my work on the alternative text. Because this is my first time using alt text, you should probably check to see if it's OK. Otherwise, I think this article is ready. Wildroot (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 GA Sweeps on hold

I wanted to let you know that I just reviewed Spider-Man 3 for GA Sweeps and found a few issues that need to be addressed. I wanted to alert you to the review since you're one of the main contributors. If the other issues are addressed, I can help with the dead links. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club

My all-time favorite book, and one of my favorite films. Glad to see it at FAC and I look forward to reviewing it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome to hear that! :) Hope you can help do the article justice. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm unfortunately opposing because the prose isn't ready. But, I'd like to work with you to get it up to par within the timeframe of the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem, and I appreciate your examples. Someone copy-edited it some time ago, but I had a feeling that it was not the most skilled performance. I will review the writing... a good tip is to read it out loud to yourself, isn't it? Easier to detect some of these weird phrases. :) I'm about to turn in, so I will take a look at your suggestions then the article tomorrow. Thanks for weighing in! —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I am new to the FAC process, what is your suggestion about copy-editing Fight Club? I feel like I can continue to make changes every time I go through the article. I checked with the Guild of Copy Editors, but they seem so backlogged. I'm willing to review every so often (it's funny how there's always something new to discover each time). I admit I rushed the article a tad to FAC because I hoped to request it as a front page article for October 15, 2009, the film's 10th anniversary. Didn't realize my writing wasn't so solid! :P Any suggestions would be great. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, any more these days all you can really do is ask around. I can help out with the copy editing if you'd like. I don't claim to catch everything but I'm not bad. --Laser brain (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Your help would be greatly appreciated! GrahamColm provided a new list of fixes that I carried out, so obviously there's more work to be done. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It's already looking vastly improved—I will follow up at the nomination page either today or tomorrow. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I expected to start a new section, but I see a conversation has already begun. Thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. With your blessing, I will continue to tweak the prose, but I have added my support. Let's hope that no major issues are unearthed by my fellow FAC regulars. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Any help you can provide in improving the article's prose is very much welcomed! The focus on copy-editing certainly tells me in the future to try to get more work done in that field for other articles before I bring them up for review. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Did some minor tweaking and a bit of repositioning - while post-production and lab work may seem to be a visual effect in the literal sense, anything involving the overall "look" of the film is traditionally considered cinematography; the job doesn't stop at production. I've also clarified a few things - feel free to copy edit, of course, but I changed phrasing that I considered blatantly inaccurate. Unfortunately directors often talk a lot of tripe that they may genuinely believe. I recall hearing Mike Leigh claim that Vera Drake was shot on a special Kodak experimental film stock, only to find out months later, when speaking to his cinematographer, that it was actually shot on what was (by the time of release) the most popular film stock in use. Leigh's confusion arose from the fact that his film was amongst the first to use it when they were in production. These things happen. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the changes! Admittedly, I have no technical expertise, and I tried to interpret the material the best I could. I appreciate your fixing the errors involved. Let me know if you need access to something like Cinefex. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Notes and References

Yes, I've always been a bit confused by the two different headings. I think references is more apt, and looks more encyclopedic too. Lugnuts (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE seems to support "Notes" for footnotes. "References" are for a source that has "a significant amount of the material" used in the article (books and periodicals whose coverage is multi-paged). "Bibliography" is mentioned at the page as apart from referencing for the article body; it's more of a "Further reading" section. I will probably revise my write-up to be in line with this, though it's not something we should crack down on. If you have any thoughts about my write-up so far, feel free to share. :) And thanks for catching the AVP slip-up... —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Greetings - I wonder if you have ever considered becoming an administrator? Or, more to the point, if you would have any use for the tools? I'd consider nominating you. I'm going to approach Steve as well. Let me know and we'll chat. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the offer to nominate me! :) I have considered becoming an administrator but do not want to do so yet for a couple of reasons: One, I do not have use for the tools at present; I'm becoming more and more involved with WikiProject Films, though, so tools may eventually come in handy. Two, outside of the mainspace, I prefer to be a non-admin while I am involved as a lead coordinator for WikiProject Films. Not that I would wave the map, but I want to be able to accomplish goals without any possible stigma attached. Hope you understand my reasons, and again, appreciate the consideration! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you've got time

If you're bored or have some extra time, I'd love your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: First Contact/archive1. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I should have some extra time later today or tomorrow! I am a guest at a friend's house and without my own computer, so my access is touch-and-go. I'll try to find a time slot soon so I can read through the very comprehensive article and respond to it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Camp Kawanhee for Boys & Bryan Singer

Yes.. thousands of kids go to summer camp each year. But how many world famous entertainers, singers, actors, etc go to summer camp each year. Please undo your removal of the Camp Kawanhee For Boys reference in the Bryan Singer page. It is a noteworthy fact that he attended this summer camp. It would be a non-noteworthy fact if there were a reference to you and your summer camp experience because you are not a famous and influential person. Furthermore, expanding on the bio of famous individuals only adds to the pool of information from which we draw, if we quash that information then where do we end. For example, millions of kids go to college every year so should we delete those references too??? --You Talkin' to Me??? (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Tag and assess drive

Thanks for the heads up - I'll take a look and reply with comments. Lugnuts (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Erik/Future film follower

I have deleted the above page as you requested. In the future, however, please refrain from tagging userboxes you've made for speedy deletion if they are transcluded by other users. This causes widespread disruption because every userpage transcluding the userbox is also nominated for speedy deletion. Using <noinclude></noinclude> would be one way to circumvent the problem. However, it would be much more considerate to either migrate your userbox to another userspace (such as User:UBX/Future film follower), or to subst: the transclusions. If you need help with this task, please follow the instructions at WP:UBM. Best regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that other editors transcluded it; I should have checked. Thanks for letting me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Besos Brujos

This film is from 1937. Public domain in Argentina, Please get your facts straight before you start claim non free fair use. I've logged in this morning and found my talk page spammed, I'm not happy with the way you've removed images and left them all orphaned. If they don't qualify as fair use, PLEASE delete them to avoid spamming people. This is not want you want to see when logging in. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the best way to "delete" them? I'm not an admin, and unfortunately, the bot will always inform the uploaders when images are removed. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, do you have any thoughts about WT:FILM#Film studios and Creative Commons licenses? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

← Nehrams2020 above mentioned the {{bots}} template to avoid botspam; review the documentation, and your talk page can be happily bot-free. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey amigo, sorry I didn't mean to be snappy, just have 100kb of bot notices on logging in is well..... You are right to remove the images, I agree which is why having my talk page spammed for images which you justifiably removed is a bit annoying, I can't save them if you can't LOL!!! SOmetimes the images up for deletion are occasionally valid though. vandalism or something, but Nehrams idea sounds good! WHat I would do, is work through whatever list you are doing in a session, then afterwards pleace all of the images at images for deletion and say why they are all failing criteria. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am amazed you aren't an admin. If ever you want to go for adminship, I'd happily support you... Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I will need to be more careful with articles of somewhat older films... I think I found some of your images that had both public domain and copyright licenses, which kind of confused me... I think that if it's in public domain, it doesn't need to have a copyright license. I concede the matter with Besos Brujos; I probably thought, oh, it's after 1925, it's not a fitting non-free image. I try to keep my image review limited because I still want to find better alternatives, like the Creative Commons discussion I pointed to. I even had an idea to pursue video clips in film articles; I think it's been technically difficult to do so, which is why they haven't been around. U2 3D has a clip, and I think that Apt Pupil could have a clip of the march scene (with lots of critical commentary focused on the scene). I'm sure there are other examples we could pursue for best practice, like the lightsaber choreography in The Phantom Menace -- a screenshot can't capture that! And adminship, ah... someone approached me the other day; you can see my reason for declining at the link. Eventually, eventually... really, I'd rather not be deleting images 'cause I don't want to mess up like with Besos Brujos and exclude a perfectly good image. I know it's spammy, but at least you can catch the mistakes of this imperfect individual. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but you weren't to know about that anyway. Photographs become public domain in Argentina pre 1989 at the moment I believe its 20 years, not sure about film posters I, but judging by the number we have in the commons I'd say they are public domain too. A lot of Argentine posters and photos though are incorrectly licensed as fair use, especially the older ones. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club

Congratulations on your FA. I just read it and it's quite good. I saw the film on TV the other day for the second/third time: one of those deals where I couldn't watch the entire thing, but it showed again a couple nights later.

This is not intended to be a suggestion for the article, and I certainly skipped my chance when I neglected FAC for several weeks, but the second time I watched the film I was simultaneously struck with how I identified with the characters' frustration about being trapped, yet had no concept of how to relate to their expression of it with violence. The film seemed hypermasculine to me and I did not see any discussion in the article about this specifically, although Norton's character being emasculated and the homoerotic overtones were covered. This also struck me while watching Saving Private Ryan in the first awful opening scene, I'm a bit squeamish to say (lest I be branded a sexist pig) that the thought hammered in my head, this brutality is what comes of putting men in charge of politics and defense, and men go joyfully and faithfully into battle and end up picking their limbs up from a bloody beach. Perhaps Fight Club appealed so much to men that women did not review the film in terms of feminist art; after all, Brad Pitt with his shirt off, to women, seems the equivalent to advertising dictating your life. Why ask questions when Brad Pitt is half naked?

I wonder what a woman's expression of frustration would be like. An International Coffee Moment? How Stella Got Her Groove Back? Please. At any rate, this is a stream of consciousness. Well done on the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Masculinity is definitely a huge part of the film; I may look into re-including a review touching on it. You may be interested in the review by feminist author Susan Faludi, who wrote Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man -- not available online, but it was published in Newsweek on October 19, 1999. I had the review in the "Critical reception" section, but I excluded it to make the section more concise. I plan to work on Interpretations of Fight Club, which will definitely build on commentary. The existing sections at that sub-article have some side commentary about masculinity, but if you look at the "Further reading" section, there is some coverage explicitly about masculinity that I plan to include. So my work is not quite done! I'd like to have the sub-article as an example of an analysis of a film from every side, although some of these articles are incredibly cerebral to read. I will probably dabble in some other stuff first, like American Beauty with Steve and Dark City on my own. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Articles are never done. Thanks for humoring me. --Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're really interested, Moni, I could probably fetch the Newsweek article for your perusal. Not sure if it's along your relative path, but as long as we're talking out loud the occasionally-hyperbolic Their Eyes Were Watching God is basically all about female frustration, worth a read. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I read it, and thought it was a great story. For some reason, the most vivid part of it was the hurricane and the rabid dog, Teacake being conscribed to bury all the bodies. Before that, I somehow vaguely recall (it's been about 20 years since I read it) Teacake going to Jacksonville to go gambling, and Janie not getting along with her mother. Now I have to re-read it... I have access to Newsweek. I'm in the middle of three other things, and need to get around to reading it. Thanks for offering, though. --Moni3 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think they fed us so much "african american experience" literature in high school that I ended up developing a distaste for it in general, though I did enjoy parts of Their Eyes were Watching God (particularly the bit about how the white men acquitted the black women, but the white women would have condemned her). I've got plenty of time to waste reading, so I'll probably grab the article myself before I dive into The Mother Tongue. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Does it date me more to say I read Hurston's book 20 years ago or to announce that The Color Purple was banned in my school district? When I wanted to do a book report on it I had to get signed permission from my mom--who had purchased the book for me. I guess it's true that books are so much better when you read them on your own than being assigned to read them. All the poor children who hate To Kill a Mockingbird because Mrs. Stevenson was such a whore who sent them to detention for throwing spitballs at Kevin. Harper Lee doesn't deserve it, but I bet it's part of the reason why she tells reporters to sit and spin. --Moni3 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club, redux

Congrats on the article passing FAC. It is well-deserved. Now can you do The Game and Seven? Thanks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I've considered doing Seven, but I'm less sure about The Game—the ending always bothered me. The protagonist stepping off the ledge and plunging to what seems to be his death, and he lands in his own party where guests laugh gaily? It never sat right for me. Seven, on the other hand... wicked good. I'm actually getting a book called Dark Eye about the films of David Fincher, so there will be details all around and perhaps a bit more for Fight Club, too. It wasn't available at any library, so I just decided to buy it used. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice work! A long road traveled on this one, but worth the patience you showed in waiting to nominate it. Steve T • C 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Now I'm hoping for some face time on October 15... —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on your first FA, hopefully we see some more from you down the line. It seems like the process went by pretty fast, so that's fortunate. We're actually seeing some articles being nominated for the July improvement drive, which is good. I've been working on National Film Registry to get it to FL, so hopefully I can get that in as a nomination before the end of the month. I'm currently visiting family with slower Internet and less time, so I'll finish working on that and look more into the T&A drive later this week. By the way, thanks for removing those screenshots from that Care Bears article, now I'm getting those annoying bot spam messages! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh! :) You and Dr. Blofeld both! Let me know if you really do have a problem with the removal (I sense a joking tone underneath, but I could be wrong). But I was not sure if there was a way to remove images without the botspam. Just plop them down at WP:FFD? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just joking. As much as I don't like the bot messages, I still have to get the notifications because sometimes I miss the image being removed from an article (most likely due to vandalism) and have to readd it. I used to resize large images, but after getting multiple bot notices, I stick to just deleting old revisions. If you want to catch Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Spam Bots see the archives of Grandpafootsoldier. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If anyone's getting annoying bot messages you can squelch them with the {{bots}} template. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A request

Hello! Can you go through the categories and remove the film lists from cluttering the top of the main year categories e.g Category:2008 films. Then can you create new categories e.g Category:Lists of 2008 films by country or language, Category:Lists of 1975 films by country or language etc. so all of the films linked in the year templates go neatly under one category.

P.S., oh did I nominate fight club for an FA, I can't remember I thought I didm because well, it has bene an FA for ages, you still had something to add right? that is very odd, I thought I nominated Fight Club about two weeks ago!! Either way I'm gald you did and it is now an FA. Congrats. I am Jack's raging bile duct.. Or maybe Jill's nipple? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you want to do. What's wrong with having the lists of 2008 films from different territories in that category? Also, are you talking about further categorizing the entirety of the 2008 films by country and/or language? Like Fight Club would be in "1999 American film" or "1999 English-language film"? I'm not familiar enough with categories to determine if the "2008 films" category needs to be sub-categorized or not. It may warrant wider discussion with others? Also, regarding Fight Club, the archives show that you asked why it wasn't a FA yet, and I said I had more work to do. (I still do, sort of, with Interpretations of Fight Club.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL of course I don't want to change categories like that. All I asked is if you could just place the lists in a sub category. Never mind. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag 26 image removed

"Removed non-free image from article per WP:FILMNFI since it lacks backing of critical commentary to justify fair use"

what do you mean by critical commentary? Within the article Tag 26 under the image it said "Depiction of one of the characters of the short film Tag 26 looking at photographs of a dead couple." Doesn't that count as a commentary on the image? Can the image go back on the article if something is added?Fegor (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical commentary can be something like commenting on how the specific shot was structured or how something in the specific shot was designed. We could take any screenshot from Tag 26 and add a textual description to it; that does not mean it is suddenly critical commentary. For non-free images to be included on Wikipedia articles, because Wikipedia strives to be a free encyclopedia first and foremost, there must be a significant reason. The image must also not be replaceable by a free image or by descriptive text. I'm not familiar with the film, but one possible screenshot that could be used is a more direct look at the biohazard suits and critical commentary from secondary sources about their design. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Can I write the critical commentary or can't it be original research? If I find an image or use this one again do I have to find commentary already known about the scene? Or could someone use their knowledge of the scene to point something out worthy of going into an encyclopaedia and that would qualify the image to be in the article? I want to make it work because the article looks a lot nicer with the image :) Fegor (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Content in articles should mainly come from reliable, published secondary sources. The exception is providing a basic description of the primary source (the topic in question), like a plot summary for a film or the structure of a nonfiction book. I took a peek at the resources I can access, but Tag 26 is not a major enough film to get extensive coverage. Do you have any access to German resources that cover the film in detail? You could use such resources to strengthen the article body, and if a passage is best illustrated by a non-free image (review WP:NFCC first), an image can be added. Believe me, I know how nicer articles can be with images... problem is that so many films are copyrighted, so we have to have very specific reasons for non-free screenshots. See Fight Club (film) and Changeling (film), for example. Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Up in the Air (film) article created

Erik,
I promised to tell you when I would be creating Up in the Air (film). Someone else just created the article. I've held off on creating the article since there is very information available on the film. The PR focuses almost exclusively on George Clooney being in the film.--Dan Dassow (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dan! The article seems to be acceptable. I imagine that the film is able to get coverage because of Clooney's involvement, so I think it can be tolerated. Can't foresee deletion of any sort here... ignoring all rules, the film will get its share of coverage because of Clooney as well as the director. Let me know if you want to collaborate on improving the article in terms of style and content. It could use a lead section, for one thing. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Erik, Thank you for your offer to help. I will flesh out the article and get back with you as I need guidance. In contrast to Changeling (film), there is remarkably little information on Up in the Air.--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your note re User:World Cinema Writer

Hi,

I have started a discussion at WT:Good article nominations#User:World Cinema Writer which is the forum for such concerns. Thank. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page and also responded at the discussion at GAN. At this point it will be best if the reviews have a second opinion. If Writer continues to review GANs without responding to the discussion or his talk page, then further action can be taken. I also moved the article back to its prior name and fixed the double redirects. Let me know if there is anything else. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club redux

Congratulations on passing FA with this article. I hope you know that I've regarded it as a quality article for some time and I'm glad you took the time to jump through the hoops!! Not realizing it had passed is, of course, the fault of Scarlett Johansson, whose GA status I've been trying to retain by bringing it up to 2009 standards from 2006. I hope Scarlett appreciates the effort, it's driving me to distraction (obviously). Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you need more information for it or not? She has an entry at Current Biography Illustrated. I pasted the content here for your usage. Information for citing it should be there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! There are some things I can definitely use from there. It's interesting. I hadn't seen that, but I actually had used part of the same quote for Manny & Lo from Mick LaSalle at the San Francisco Chronicle about her "peaceful aura" and "If she can get through puberty with that aura undisturbed, she could become an important actress." Geez, I hope no one thinks I found it from there! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

On getting Fight club up to FA status! I'm very impressed. I hope you are going to try to get it on the main page for its 10 year anniversay release (October 15, 2009). Remember (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I plan to try my best to request its presentation for the anniversary! :) I want to keep developing Interpretations of Fight Club so it's a solid sub-article for people to visit after seeing the main article. My main concern about requesting the film article for the front page on that date, though, is that it's not going to score a ton of points in terms of importance. All I can do is hope that there are not many more significant articles that may knock Fight Club out of the running in October! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolding in main text: film articles

How do you propose to proceed on this matter, Erik? Tony (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We have WikiProject guidelines for writing film articles, and a rewrite of WP:FILMCAST, which is by now the oldest part of the guidelines, is in order. In a rewrite, we can say to exclude bold formatting because it cannot be applied for "Cast" sections per MOS:BOLD. We can also review Good and Featured Articles (for which I plan to pursue alternate text, too, anyway) to remove such formatting. Editors are pretty good about following the guidelines for film articles and the examples of reviewed articles. For example, Alien vs. Predator (film) was on the front page, and leading up to its presentation, there was a discussion on the talk page about bold formatting. The primary editor cited WP:FILMCAST and examples of FAs that use bold formatting. My big concern in making this change resistance from editors who are used to bold formatting. While there's a healthy amount of discussion at WT:FILM, a good portion of editors don't discuss very much and may like the traditional approach. I've considered a RfC for opinions of editors not so involved with film articles. Think we need to go this far, or should I just make an internal push first? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)

Hey Erik, Bovineboy2008 has been moving some articles of films from the year of theatrical release to the year of its first festival screening (eg. Fanboys (2009 film) → Fanboys (2008 film)) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) is a little vague and just says use "the year of its first public release". Just to clarify, this excludes film festivals right? On the WP:NCF talk page, another editor has also said "public release" is too confusing. Maybe a few additional sentences could be added to the guideline to clarify this. (eg. "The year of public release is the year in which the film is released in cinemas in any country. This excludes film festival screenings. Where a film does not screen outside of film festivals, use the year of its first festival screening.") Thanks. - kollision (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the explanation at WP:NCF. The public release does mean festival screenings are excluded. This is the threshold because very, very few people get to see festival screenings, and even if a film gets screened at them, it does not always get a lot of press. The press steps up around the time it is available to the public. Also, even if a film is released at a festival in 2007, it may not make itself truly known until 2008, and critics list it as "one of the best films of 2008" for that reason. For example, 300 was first screened in 2006, but it's well-known as a 2007 film because it made its major splash in March 2007, not December 2006. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Film series numbering controversy

You may like to comment here: Talk:Film_series#Requested_move - Robsinden (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text help

The alt text you wrote is very good. The only suggestion I can make is "briefer". Although opinions differ about the proper length, our blind reader has said more than once that brief is good. One possibility that I haven't raised in the forum yet is to put the longer description on the image page, and a shorter precis in the alt text. Maybe this sort of thing could be done with images like File:Doomsday poster.jpg? Eubulides 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quick cut at trimming (and adding to!) File:Doomsday_poster.jpg's alt text:
'Red movie poster with "DOOMSDAY" over a montage shaped like the letters X and I superimposed. The montage includes a feral woman screaming, a sword, a beautiful woman with sword raised in defense, and the tattooed backside of a man with arms outstretched and a mohawk. Above is "MANKIND HAS AN EXPIRATION DATE".'
As for how a visually impaired reader would know that clicking would give them more info, perhaps we could append "Click for more.", but I expect it'd be better just to put it on the description page without the "Click for more", as the screen reader already tells you that you can click for more. A visually impaired reader's opinion would count for more than mine, of course. Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead

I am having a difficult time with Inurhead and content in The Hurt Locker. I have been consistent in finding this film a 2008 film, and Inurhead continually reverts me. S/He hasn't responded to the talk page before reverting and he has a serious case of owning the article. I may be wrong in my reasoning, but there isn't anyway to get him/her to discuss. Any help you could provide would be great. BOVINEBOY2008 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pages Deleted

4 pages you requested to be deleted as the author of these pages have been deleted. Happy editing! — JamesR (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the HBP

I know you have weighed in this subject before. User:Kevin5593 has insisted on including a difference that doesn't have a reliable source and will not talk to me about it. I don't want to edit war, but he doesn't seem to be responding to me. Could you help out? BOVINEBOY2008 04:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the problem took care of itself. I'll keep an eye on the film article, but I think that the consensus is against him regarding trivial differences. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek

I believe the conversation you leep removing is from a discussion approxiamately 1 week ago when we have a blowup regarding the use of the term Alternate Reality vs a Paralel Universe. if i'm wrong apologies however shouldn't that be left there so we can explain to people weve had that arguement and don't need to repeat it.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the off topic template. I do agree with you in practice a talk page shouldn't be I liked this or that and one or two of those comments could've been edited out sompletely but either way hopefully the template helps out.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolding in cast sections

Hi, I notice you've been on a bit of a crusade to remove bolding from casting sections. I've read WP:BOLDFACE and I don't think that bolding actor & character names, when they're followed by several lines of prose, goes against the MoS in any way. It's been our standard practice for a long time, and a majority of film FAs use this format. Has there been some new consensus formed that this is to be avoided? If so, could you please provide a link to the discussion? If not, then I respectfully request that you cease removing boldface on these grounds and instead start a discussion to establish consensus on the issue. (And if, indeed, consensus supports removing the boldface, then I suggest employing a bot to do it as there are probably hundreds of articles that will need to be fixed.) --IllaZilla (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD identifies a "few special uses" for bold formatting in the article body. Bolding names is not one of them. WikiProject Films may have used them for a long time, but tradition is not a good reason when the MOS is already clear about how to use such formatting. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I've raised the issue at WT:FILM. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

Are you too busy or can you take a look at Watchmen (film)? The GA review asks for a copyedit on tense use problems. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 02:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Email

Sent a big one your way - let me know if you don't receive it shortly. Otherwise, I'll expect to hear from you there! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Image question

I finally got my DVD collection of the Star Trek films so I've been adding better quality copies. I had a question about image choice, however. I want a picture of the Borg queen doing her disembodied floaty thing, but I'm trying to cram in more elements for the FUR if possible. Do you think a shot along the lines of File:Borgqueen.png is better (shows more of the effect) or something like File:S08-first contact borg queen.png (which shows more of the "Borg hell" engineering section)? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Borgqueen.png is the better choice if you can get a new, clearer shot. It shows the body, and the background seems to have more up-close detail. (The other one's main subject feels more distant, so does the rest of the environment.) An extreme alternative to both of these is to see if you can't capture a video clip of the whole process; that would really significantly illustrate the context for readers. Film is a moving medium, after all! Just depends on if you feel like one of the two screenshots is enough or if the fair use rationale for a clip isn't that strong. There is not much precedent when it comes to video clips... I think U2 3D has a video clip, but I personally don't find the rationale to be very solid. (Just food for thought!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. I hadn't thought about a video, but I might as well try it. I've certainly got a lot more elements that can be discussed (Borg queen, integration sequence, Borgified set design, "sexy" character that's the subject of critical reception) than the U2 one. (You can see it in action in Star Trek: First Contact#Effects now!) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
That is fantastic! :) That was definitely what I had in mind about video clips. I want to do something similar at Apt Pupil (film) with its Nazi march scene. Can you explain the steps you took to create the video clip? I've been considering a multimedia department to outline the technical steps to take screenshots and to capture clips like these... I really want to see how FAC reviewers receive the clip! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've posted at WT:FAC to gather more input. Since I'm on a Mac, it was a tad painful to do, but I figured it out :) I ripped the scene from my DVD with HandBrake (cross platform), then cropped it to the 30 second clip, reduced the size and exported it again from QuickTime Pro (Windows/Mac, costs money though). For the Theora conversion I used a command-line FFmpeg2theora app that's cross-platform as well and output some slightly cleaner custom settings. I tried the OGG conversion through VLC but it came out smashed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik/Archive_18&oldid=1166514635"