Jump to content

User talk:Erik/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Hello!

Hello Erik! Thanks for participating on the Kanthaswamy page discussion. I would like to also apologise if any of my statements are harsh to you. Sorry from the bottom of my heart. Thanks again man! Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 13:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I don't know what I was thinking at the time. I guess I didn't do my research. Anyway, happy editing! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

movie-censorship

I noticed this site on your spam page while searching for links. There seems to be an effort by a string of IPs to add links to the site (usually as references) over the past few weeks. The site doesn't appear to qualify as such, especially given their disclaimer:

"Information presented on our Service may contain errors or inaccuracies, and we make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, correctness or reliability of the content of our Service."

I'm working through the list, but thought you should know in case you see any pop up. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will tackle some of the articles that got spammed. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Halloween 6: Director's Cut

I see that you removed this from the Halloween 6 page which surprised me, but I just wanted to let you know that this version of the film exists so you should not have taken it off the page. Some of the extended clips in this uncut version of the Theatrical Cut are even featured on Youtube. As for the information at Movie-Censorship.com most of the time it's correct in it's information as it provides pictures of these deleted footage of films and alternate takes in TV versions. It features pictures that show the extended footage in the Director's Cut of this movie that is in fact in there. The scenes such as the operating room massacre with the beheading of Dr. Wynn and the nurse getting gutted aren't shown in pictures, but everything else in there is and are in fact correct. So I don't see why it can't remain linked on the page. It's the only website that supports what's shown in the Director's Cut. It's the version of Halloween 6 that has little known to to a lot of people and this information would help them. Again, this cut DOES EXIST. The pictures shown at the link prove this.

Jabrona (talk 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The website movie-censorship.com is not considered a reliable source, and one is needed to verify information about the director's cut. Anyone can set up a personal website and display screenshots and analyze them personally, but that does not make it a reliable source. WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Do you think movie-censorship.com qualifies in that regard, whether or not it's "correct"? I would recommend using other sources, but if you say that the director's cut is little known, that may not be much at all to say about it. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I still think it should be on the page, or at least the Halloween 6: Director's Cut section. It's another alternate version of Halloween 6 that people should know about. It's only little because of the little alternation in it that's like 2 minutes altogether that's not as big as the Producer's Cut which holds 43 minutes of deleted footage and alternate scenes. That website was all there was about this version because you really don't see this info anywhere else. I don't think there are any other sources reliable enough to use. The link can remain removed but I think the Director's Cut section itself should still stay up on the page. Jabrona (talk | contribs) 21:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:HORROR

Hey Erik, if you have time, could you drop in at this discussion on how to get the Horror WikiProject back on it's feet? Thanks, --TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Minority Report

Any reference help would be appreciated, thanks. AaronY (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am really sad, that you deleted every bit of my effort regarding different versions of movies with the reason that is "link spam". I did not post any links without giving some explanations and information to the database here. I just backed up my texts with a source like it should be. Some other admins even thought my links and texts are interesting and just reformatted them a bit. Some of my texts in my opinion were detailed and informative, like the one I posted in the Armageddon article. I think it is useful and interesting information for readers, that there is a director's cut on the market, especially when the most releases only contain the shorter version. Censorship in general is a topic which is always interesting regarding every art like movies, books, comics etc. To delete such information on an encyclopaedia in my opinion is wrong. But in the end you have more pull here then me, so I can't change it.

To cite a sentence from the terms of use of movie-censorship.com is really not very convincing. This is just a standard "Terms of Use"-text, which you can find on many sites. Of course the makers of the comparisons on movie-censorship.com can not guarantee that they do not make any mistakes or that they won't oversee some cuts. Especially when some movies have more then 500 cuts like the Millenium-trilogy. In the end they are only human. That is the reason for the ToU-text.

Maybe you can give it a second thought. Anyway, have a nice.

Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.64.254 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, please see my comment to Jabrona above. The website is not a reliable source, and it is not recommended to solicit one website across multiple film articles (see WP:LINKSPAM). I agree with you that censorship is a worthwhile topic to cover, but judging from the "x minutes were removed / x scenes were edited" statements, these are not illustrative. It would be more useful to cover film censorship as a whole and to identify key examples for assessment. Maybe a new stand-alone article? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It is as Jabrona already said above: That site provides a lot of information which you won't find on ANY other side in the www. If you are lucky you may find a few boards where people discuss those topics. But I guess that would not be a reliable source either. With your argumentation it is nearly impossible to add anything new to wikipedia, as long as there are no "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". Where should such authoritative authors come from as long as it is a new thing and even more, as long as nobody else gives information about this?
Just for explanation: movie-censorship.com is mainly a translation of the German website www.schnittberichte.com --> This side is one the biggest movie-sites in the German WWW. It has also got it's own entry on the German-wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnittberichte.com There you also find a link to movie-censorship.com as the english-pendent. It is also cited a lot in the German wikipedia as well as in a some German magazines, some books and websites. There, those people are known as authoritative authors.
Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.64.254 (talk • contribs) 19:23, January 7, 2011
Thank you for your feedback. I did not know that about its German incarnation. I think that use of the website warrants larger discussion, so I will start one at WikiProject Film's talk page. Regardless, since you are wanting to use this website in a widespread manner on Wikipedia, please realize that we need to avoid a conflict of interest. The ideal editor should be combining sources of different kinds that he or she has no affiliation to. I will link you to the larger discussion when I start it. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not have time to set up the discussion tonight. I will try to do so tomorrow (Saturday). Erik (talk | contribs) 01:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So what does this mean about movie-censorship.com Erik? Jabrona (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Erik, there was a mini-consensus on the Salt talk page (and here) to include the Director's Cut since the ending is very different from the theatrical. This was mainly because editors was changing the plot to the Director's Cut version, repeatedly. —Mike Allen 01:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Was it the best source available? If the ending is radically different, it would have been noted by more than just that website, surely. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure, I didn't add it. Objectivecorrector did and once he sees that it's gone, he's probably going to add it back. lol —Mike Allen 02:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually the section was added back by another editor, not me. And this person added a more detailed version than my original short version. lol! But for film plots, unfortunately there is no "source" that writes the events of a film in detail as in the Wikipedia articles. This is why the only source is the original film itself, and what we remember after seeing it. Objectivecorrector (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note This discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard concluded that the site does not constitute a reliable source per the project's guidelines. --Ckatzchatspy 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Hey I just recently nominated The Last Airbender for good article status and I am just asking you to help out in any way you could to make it that way. Listening to some of the comments in the review should help. Jhenderson 777 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of East German Military base in Equilibrium

The image of the East German military base in the Wikipedia article of Equilibrium movie, is not just any non-free image taken by a camera, but it is a frame extracted from the original movie itself. It appears that this kind of non-free image can be legally posted at Wikipedia article, because the fair use policy allows it. This context significantly differs from posting at Wikipedia the photos taken by an individual photographer who owns the copyrights of the image. Generally the film industry authorizes individual frames extracted from the movie to be posted at Wikipedia for informative purposes. This is why after careful deliberation I had added the image of the abandoned East German military base to the Wikipedia article of Equilibrium. In this case, if you agree with this assessment, please let us put back the image at the Wikipedia article. Best Regards, Futuristicarchitect (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with fair use in regard to personal photography, but I am familiar with screenshots from films. The film industry does not itself authorize for screenshots to be used. When we use a screenshot, the criteria has to be more narrow than United States fair use law (see WP:NFCC). In this regard, I removed the screenshot because per policy, a free equivalent is possible. The East German military base exists, and someone could take a picture of the same place and release it under a free license (if they have not already). It is common to use freely-licensed images of landscapes or buildings in film articles. For example, at Changeling (film), a freely-licensed image of the Los Angeles City Hall is used. In the "Closing sequence" section, however, the screenshot has no free equivalent, and it is used to illustrate the sequence discussed in the section. I think there are other aspects of Equilibrium that could be illustrated by a screenshot, provided that there is critical commentary in the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You are raising very good questions about the possibility that inside a movie there might be a screenshot that is not free since it might belong to another artist. If what you mean is that the screenshot might in reality be a photo that belongs to an artist that owns the copyright, I can assure you that the image of the East German military base I have used is a frame from Kurt Wimmer's film directly made by his team: that image shows the white Cadillac Seville of Cleric Preston in front of the massive walls of the City of Libria (the walls of Libria are represented by the walls of the East German base), which proves that the image is not incorporated from another artist's work. It is true that at the beginning of Equilibrium, there were some war film fragments that were made by other artists many decades ago, but this is not the case for the image I have used here. Thus all the rights of this frame belong to the movie company that made Equilibrium, but I believe that in this case, the fair use laws allow a small number of frames from the movie to be added to a Wikipedia article about the movie, although a commercial article that is trying to make money from putting this image would be illegal without written authorization from the movie company. Thus the distinction is that for Wikipedia, the fair use rules allow for a few frames from the movie to be used if it is directly an article about the movie itself, without taking advantage of the images to support another cause. Futuristicarchitect (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in, but there's a distinction to be made between US fair use laws and Wikipedia's fair use policy. According to US law, the use of screenshots in this manner seems well established as an aspect of fair use and film companies seem accepting of it (as well they should be). However, Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia (even if it doesn't always succeed), and its fair use policies have been crafted with that in mind, not US law. To attempt achieve its goal, Wikipedia is deliberately more restrictive than US law when it comes to this sort of material. So the comparisons are not quite appropriate. It's now well-established that such decorative screenshots—fair use elsewhere and acceptance by film companies notwithstanding—must have a much stronger rationale to be used here than on other websites. In this case, the image may well pass US fair use tests, but it certainly fails several aspects of the non-free content criteria (which, as you can see, is definitely more restrictive than US law). We might not always like the policy, but it's one we need to abide by. Best regards, Steve T • C 11:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve. Futuristicarchitect, I think we are in agreement about the copyright of the screenshots belonging to the studio. In a lot of places online, because of fair use, screenshots are used liberally in articles like reviews. (Ebert uses one in his review of The Green Hornet.) Wikipedia could probably do that and be okay, but its overall goal, like Steve said, is to be about free content. For example, some people have gone to Comic Con and have taken pictures of actors which they freely license for use, not just on Wikipedia, but anywhere as long as there is attribution. Another example is that sometimes personal photos can be found on Flickr, and we can request for photographers to release the photos under a free license. I did this with Alex Tse. Regarding screenshots, we are not able to request free licensing, so whenever we use them, we have to demonstrate contextual significance for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:FILMNFI for WikiProject Film's guidelines on when screenshots can be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for the information, Steve and Erik. These rules are counter-intuitive, but I have no choice but to agree if these Wikipedia rules apply in this case. But on this occasion, let me also emphasize that Erik said: "In this regard, I removed the screenshot because per policy, a free equivalent is possible ". In this case, finding a free equivalent of a similar East German military base (or even a similar East European military base from the same era) is difficult. I have seriously tried to use Google to find such an image but I could not. Otherwise if I could find a similar free picture I would have used it. Please note that I was the one who chose the free images of the Olympic Stadium and the Subway station under the Reichtag building, and I made sure that these were already available from Wikipedia, even though I also found corresponding frames taken from the Equilibrium movie, and the frames of the stadium and the subway station extracted from Equilibrium look even better due to the lighting and other features of the film. But in this case, it seems that the only way to find a free image of the abandoned East German military base is to go there and take the picture personally. But if the latter option is precisely what the Wikipedia rules require, then I understand the situation. Best Regards, Futuristicarchitect (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Popzara review from Dance Central

Please help me understand why this review would be considered spam? The website is accurate as is the text of the review. I was also able to find many other reviews by Popzara quoted on Wikipedia including "And Yet It Moves", "Ys", and "Sonic the Hedgehog 4" - the quote was not mine, but I'm fairly new to editing and I'd like to understand this undo a bit better. - Thanks!Skacey42 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Per your suggestion

Per your suggestion in talk page discussion, I have moved the page to Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is right?

I believe it's protocol to inform editors involved in a dispute when there is action being taken, so I just would like to point out Talk:Acceptance_of_Golden_Raspberry_Awards_by_recipients#RfC:_Removal_of_sourced_info to you. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Movie disambiguation

Is there a policy that states when movies of the same name should be disambiguated? Sometimes I've seen all movies disambiguated; other times I've seen one made the primary topic. For instance, the remakes The Omen, The Karate Kid, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween II are disambiguated, and the original films are the primary topic. Likewise, Psycho (film) was up until a few months ago carried the (1960 film) disambig and a RM failed to re-disambiguate it. Oh yeah, and I just noticed this now, but The Aviator (2004 film) was recently moved back to just The Aviator despite there being a film of the same title made in 1985. I just readded a disambig for the 1985 film. I bring this up because I noticed you movied Season of the Witch (film) to Season of the Witch (1972 film). It just seems there's no real standard and people arbitrarily move pages as they see fit until someone else decides to change it. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We have naming conventions for films, but it probably does not account for all scenarios, including the one of an original film and a remake. I think in that particular scenario, the so-called source material (book or original film) is generally accepted as the primary topic unless the source material is pretty obscure. I like to use Road to Perdition and Road to Perdition (comics) as an example.
In the past year or so, there is a push to support more ambiguous article titles for films using a form of primary-topic argument. Psycho (film) is one of them; Independence Day (film) is another (since there is a 1985 film). Both titles are obviously ambiguous about which film "<Title> (film)" could be referring to, but some editors believe that you can have a hierarchy of primary topics (see the requested move discussions at Talk:Independence Day (film), for example). I moved Season of the Witch (film) to Season of the Witch (1972 film) because we have Season of the Witch (2011 film), and neither film has enough notoriety to be the primary topic. (I recall doing brief research on the 1972 film and not finding very much retrospective coverage.)
Would you want to pursue a fine-tuning of the naming conventions to address more scenarios or to outline criteria for a primary topic among films? I had a write-up going on at User:Erik/Sandbox#Naming conventions for films of the same name but never really finished it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

DYK for Season of the Witch (2011 film)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

film project

See here for main topic. Jhenderson 777 01:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Film robot

Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Bot_requests I wrote a majority of the robot. I still have a few more features I want to add but I don't understand what you want for the talk pages. I know the bot request is kinda old so have things changed since then? I'm not sure how to proceed after the bot is written, although I have a lot of testing to do. Also it's good knowledge for you to have that I'm writing the bot. --Peppagetlk 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Peppage. I believe the requests still stand; we just went on with our editing duties. For the talk pages, the first item was to correct the project banner to "WikiProject Film", but it may not be necessary. Do the banners have to use the same template name to be able to track changes (such as new discussions) with ease? Also, for the category-related items, there are multiple film-related categories that have "red" talk pages or ones with discussions and no templates. It would help to add the template to the category talk pages to keep track of the overall count and of any individual discussions. Does that help? Let me know, and I can clarify! Erik (talk | contribs) 21:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply

You are aware that there is a incubator for Dark Knight Rises right? I was involved with formatting that a little and I was also involved with helping the redirection page being protected so if you want it unprotected I will request it unprotected for you. I also have a userpage draft still lying around when I didn't know there was a article incubator of it that I can use to format it as a film project type article if you like it to be a article before filming. Jhenderson 777 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware, but I am not surprised! :) This is the kind of thing that I think the task force can help track, especially since films based on comics are religiously tracked through development and pre-production. We can have a discussion about it once we get the task force going. I kind of explained the reasoning for this article creation at TriiipleThreat's talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Check out my userpage draft now. It's modeled as a film project article. Jhenderson 777 18:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a good start. Do you think the infobox is acceptable or not? It's not designed for future wording. After all Nolan hasn't directed yet, and the actors aren't starring yet. It seems like with four of us so far, we could probably go ahead and create a task force page. However, I contacted other editors that TriiipleThreat identified as possible candidates, so let's hear from them first. In the meantime, could you please weigh in at the WT:FILM discussion endorsing the task force? Just for due process. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I just thought of that infobox thing even before reading your comment and then removed it. So I do agree about that. And by the way the redirection title is unprotected. Jhenderson 777 20:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity are you wanting The Dark Knight Rises to be called The Dark Knight Rises film project or do you just want to leave it with the film name. Jhenderson 777 15:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
We can do just The Dark Knight Rises. For The Avengers, we have a sort-of disambiguation because "The Avengers" can refer to the team and other topics. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright here's how it looks like as a article. If you feel it is too early or anything I will gladly revert myself for you I just mainly put it there as a demonstration. Jhenderson 777 15:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Change of plans this is what it looks like. I put it back as a redirection for cautious reasons. Jhenderson 777 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You have seven in your project now. That's a pretty decent amount. Congratulations on that. Jhenderson 777 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Silverado pics

I'll ask you to please reconsider and revert that edit, because I have a compelling reason for those image additions. I noted that they were all low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. As an example, this screenshot from Avatar's page displays a similar usage/rationale, and was not deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg DeWaine (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal idea

Hi Erik. I have an idea for the Film Project. With the Acadmey Awards nominations tomorrow, I would really like to see (at least) the films nominated for Best Picture, Best Documentary, Best Animated Picture, and perhaps some other categories to get up to B-class or better. I don't have much experience in expanding articles, so its something that I would like to work on. I don't know if this is something I should bring up at the Project talk page, but was wondering if at least you would think it is a good idea. BOVINEBOY2008 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea! I think the inherent challenge will be to foment actual involvement. Editors tend to work in pre-determined areas, so they are not very motivated to go outside these boundaries. It is worth asking at WT:FILM anyway, but it may be better to identify any active contributors to articles about Oscar-nominated films and contact them directly about collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll bring it up to those talk pages once the nominations are out. BOVINEBOY2008 06:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Re: Films based on comics task force

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at TriiipleThreat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
How do you feel about launching?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Launching by now is a good idea! :) I've been sick lately, so I have not done too much. I'll see what I can do in the course of the day. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hope you feel better, let me know if I can be of any of assistance launching.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELMAYBE #1

FYI - apparently this rule has been repealed. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Green Cardamom. The repeal is the point; this is what #1 used to be. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I see. Confusing. Someone should clarify what's being said there, without the history link you provided, it's unclear. Also probably a rule added to the "Links normally to be avoided" concerning professional reviews. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Great minds think alike! After your initial message, I started discussion at WT:EL. You can see it here. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dilemma - "gay" as a pejorative

Hello, Erik. Please stop introducing weasel words and removing sourced information from the article. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the disputed part of the sentence altogether. The fact that the studio received complaints indicates that the line was offensive, so we are being redundant. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind; it apparently matters a lot to you. Have it your way. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fight Club move

Erik, have you seen the move discussion at Talk:Fight Club (film)? --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Andy. I did see it. Not sure what I would decide. I think that the source material should be primary topic over a film adaptation unless it was pretty obscure—for example, Road to Perdition vs. Road to Perdition (comics). In addition, the book's article provides a direct link to the film adaptation, then a link to the disambiguation page, so it's not a two-step process for readers. I'll weigh in with what I think tomorrow. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter

The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions on editing articles about films

Hi Erik,

I'm confused with the complexity of wikipedia but I really want to help make the existing articles on films much better. Some topics I would like to elaborate on are camera placement and movement, cinematography (depth of field in shots, frame rates and lighting) and editing (time intervals between cuts, transitions between shots (ex. dissolves, wipes)) for films.

Who can I reach out to for all my questions?

Here are a few...

How can I email a user? According to a wikipedia article, I go to the toolbox, but I don't even see a link to email you.

Why am I only allowed to submit .ogv files for video clips? Why not flash files?

Will you adopt me or can you recommend me to be adopted by a coordinator in WikiProject Film?

Thanks, Sharrukin Sharrukin josephson (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sharrukin. I'm happy to help you. I'm not sure why you are not able to email me; the link should be "Email this user" under my toolbox. I was emailed earlier this week, so I know that it is working. You don't have to email me, though. You can ask me your questions here, and I can answer them.
I'm not a technical person, but I believe that we use .ogv files because they are open-source video containers. Ah, looks like this should explain it for you: Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Video.
I'm not familiar with the adoption process, but if that means to help you around Wikipedia, I can do that. I tend to work with individual films, so I am not very familiar with filmmaking techniques. The key advice I would share is to be able to reference all content that you add to a filmmaking article. It would be great if you had books that you could cite to explain such a technique. Let me know how else I can help you. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

cont'd

Hi Erik,

Thanks for reply. Apparently I had to activate my account to be able to send emails. I'm slowly learning my way around editing and will eventually start contributing (just give me some time.) Thanks for your support. As for now, I don't think I need to be adopted. Sharrukin josephson (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hanna image

Hi Erik,

I was on the Hanna wiki page for the film and saw that you added the poster image to the page. However, I also noticed that the image is only visible when you're logged in to Wikipedia, and not to anyone who just visits the page. I'm still learning about adding images to pages, etc and was wondering if there was a setting that you could choose to make it visible for anyone who visits the page without being logged in?

Thanks! Stacey123 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOM123Wiki (talk • contribs)

Stacey, I viewed the Wikipedia article through another browser where I am not logged in, and I was able to see the poster image. Maybe try to bypass your cache? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Silverado pics

I'll ask you to please reconsider and revert that edit, because I have a compelling reason for those image additions. I noted that they were all low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. As an example, this screenshot from Avatar's page displays a similar usage/rationale, and was not deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg DeWaine (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The screenshots at Silverado just showed the people from the film decoratively. There is nothing unusual about their appearances, where science fiction films like Avatar would warrant images when there is context for them. The Avatar screenshot has a full paragraph related to what they look like. Some movies, especially the most straightforward contemporary drama films, are not going to warrant screenshots because there is nothing that cannot be covered with descriptive text. For a Western film to have screenshots in its article, it would have more to do with cinematography (think The Searchers) or motifs (like colors in one of The Man With No Name's films). In addition, it is discouraged to use soundtrack cover images, especially when they are pretty much duplicates of the poster. And lastly, home media covers are unnecessary to explain that a film was released on DVD or Blu-ray, unless there was something worth physically describing about the DVD set, like the Alien four-film set looking like an Alien's head. It may be worth looking into themes for Silverado to see if any of them would be aided by visuals. Here are a couple of sources I found: 1 and 2, essays about the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. Although I would like to comment that actors in "Cowboy Costumes" look visually different from say a contemporary film with an actor wearing a t-shirt and jeans. It helps to illustrate the setting of a different time period (in this case, the 1800s). As far as the home media covers are concerned, sometimes artwork from a film is presented in a different fashion from the theatrical release poster. I thought it was necessary to display the difference. And although it is true that in this particular case, the film poster is nearly identical to the soundtrack cover, many times the album cover might be visually different. I believe the rationales present were sufficient in describing its fair usage. DeWaine (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I think your non-contemporary criteria is too open-ended because it means that most screenshots qualify on the basis of being different. Like the cowboys, the towns will be iconic of the period, as well as the action (to an extent). There are a lot of screenshots that can reflect the film's so-called uniqueness, but there needs to be contextual significance. As the article talks about the cowboy characters, there's not a compelling need to illustrate what they look like. The key is to provide a non-free image (if it is irreplaceable) when there is focus on that visual element. WP:FILMNFI says, "Examples include, but are not limited to: production design, makeup, costume design, camera technique, visual effects, lighting, and iconic shots." These are the kinds of topics that can be discussed and can be aided by images. I do not think the cowboy appearance in this film is worth illustrating when it is treated as for-granted. There is no discussion about their appearances. In contrast, films that win awards for costume design will very likely have coverage which would then warrant having an image of the character's costume.
As for additional covers, one cover image is sufficient for the topic. Additional cover images need to have greater purpose than just identification. Most films will have several different posters, and we should not be displaying more than we need to on what should be a free encyclopedia. For example, while a horror film can have a poster for the infobox, a second poster can be shown based on controversy surrounding it and leading it to be pulled. MOS:FILM#Home media covers this a little. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


Well Erik, I suppose we can go back and forth the same way politicians accuse each other of right and wrong, but as I said in the past, I still think you hold a double standard. Perhaps as you say, my non-contemporary criteria is too open-ended or not many screenshots qualify on the basis of being different, but I can prove your double standard when it comes to editing. Here are a few quick examples from some Featured Article status pages that break the rule of: screenshots that can reflect the film's so-called uniqueness, or those which lack contextual significance. And why there's not a compelling need to illustrate what they look like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hugo_Chavez_in_Brazil-1861.jpeg - In this particular photo, we have Hugo Chavez waving. Now I ask, why is it inserted in the article? Most people know who Hugo Chavez is, and what he looks like. But just in case if you didn't, I believe the article adequately and thoroughly describes who he is, and how his influence relates to the film. There is absolutely no reason to insert this pic. The picture shows a middle age Hispanic male waving his hand. What is unique or contextually significant about this particular photograph? We don't need a photo to show us what Hugo Chavez looks like, nor do we need a photo to show what a middle aged Hispanic male looks like. This screenshot appears to fall in the category of being 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theateroutsidepub_cropped_.jpg - Here we have a photo of a film theater where the movie was screened at. Same story as the previous pic. The paragraph adequately and thoroughly describes the situation with the film being screened at this particular theater with protests and theater reception. Now I ask again, why do we have this pic for? Although the average reader might not know exactly what the exterior of this particular theater looks like; it has a brick facade and looks like any other average theater. There are tens of thousands of theaters that look just like it. So basically, we don't need a pic of this forum because the paragraph describes the situation, and we don't need a photograph of any film theater because we know what a film theater looks like. You can toss this image in the category of 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abigail_Breslin.jpg - Here we have a photograph of a young actress in the film. Please tell me, what is unique or contextually significant about a portrait shot of a 14-year old girl smiling? The actress is mentioned throughout the article, and we know how she relates to the film. Is there any compelling reason to show us what she looks like? Although we might not have known what this particular actress looked like, we understand her story by reading the article. And we also know what a 14-year old girl looks like. This pic can be inserted in the 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' bin too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ClintEastwoodCannesMay08.jpg - This is a photo of Clint Eastwood. The reasoning is the same as the above portrait shot. Some people might not know who Clint Eastwood is, but the article thorougly details who he is and what his involvement is in the film. And again, we also know what an older male looks like. There's no compelling reason to add a shot of an old man with white hair looking straight ahead.

Erik, if you can come up with some ridiculous outlandish argument to contradict what I'm saying, I really don't think I'm going to believe you. However, if you tell me all those pics are subject to deletion, I won't hold you to a double standard. Please keep in mind, these pages are all Featured Article status. They represent the best of Wikipedia. DeWaine (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I should jump in here, seeing that I'm involved with the Little Miss Sunshine and Changeling images. All of the above examples provided above are free images (whether they be released in the public domain or under a free license by their authors). Those images are not copyrighted like a film poster, DVD cover, book cover, magazine ad, etc. The free licenses entitle them to be used for any purpose (if under an attribution license, the requirement is that the author be credited). If you are looking for free images to improve Silverado, consider looking for Wikimedia Common's available images on the actors, setting, genre, etc. There may not be a specific one for the film, but you can pursue free images by contacting people who have images of the film (such as on a film set) and asking them to release it under a free license. To get a better idea on the difference between free and non-free images, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Wikipedia's goal is to use free content, and one of the most challenging tasks here is to shift away from copyrighted works and pursue free images whether through already free content or by asking permission. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nehrams2020. Thank you for the input. However, I don't believe the discussion refers to that particular technicality or not. I have a bad feeling that even if all those images were free, they would have been deleted for the content reasons above which Erik mentioned. I'd like to get Erik's viewpoint on it. I don't believe this issue has to do with free images. It has to do with Rationale. DeWaine (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing, Erik should join in on the above. I just want to point out that the benefit of free images is that there is no need for a fair use rationale (as fair use isn't needed for non-copyrighted works). It's the same equivalent of you photographing a picture of the actor and saying it's okay to be used by Wikipedia. What we're not trying to do is copy and paste a screenshot from a website and use it unless there is a compelling reason to do so based on the text included within the article. So, it's not really a technicality when dealing with the non-free vs. free content. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Nehrams said it best for me. We use freely licensed images more liberally. For example, at Season of the Witch (2011 film), I displayed free images of the main actors and a free image of the Austrian Alps, which is pretty reflective of the film's setting. When we use non-free content, we have to have a very, very good reason for it. WP:NFCC#Rationale lists the rationales for this approach. Your sample pictures are fine because they are free. To see another article that uses quite a few free images, see Barton Fink. There's no need to call my argument ridiculous and outlandish, and I would encourage you to review the guidelines for images free and non-free to understand how to best use them. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
To expand, the licensing of the image does matter. An image not freely licensed is typically copyrighted, which means that it belongs to someone and that we are restricted in how we use it. If we can provide a rationale for fair use of this image that belongs to someone else, based on the policies and guidelines and the topical context, then we can use the image on Wikipedia without requesting permission. In contrast, an image that is freely licensed means that we do not have to come up with a rationale for fair use. If the images at Silverado were freely licensed, then I would not have taken issue with them. The Featured Articles' freely licensed images are also fine to me. I was actually looking for freely licensed images of cowboys to use at Silverado, but there are not really any images that could fit in the article. That was why I provided a couple of resources that cover the film; if there are any visual elements discussed in these resources, that discussion could serve as rationale to show a screenshot from the film. Changeling (film)#Closing sequence is an example of this; the non-free image there is contextually significant, illustrating the details that are covered in that section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not that technical Erik, and I'm not quite sure how to retrieve those free images if they exist from those library sources for the article. I understand and see what you mean when you say: We use freely licensed images more liberally. Although it should be noted, you did also say: If we can provide a rationale for fair use of this image that belongs to someone else, based on the policies and guidelines and the topical context, then we can use the image on Wikipedia without requesting permission. DeWaine (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC
When I say that we use freely licensed images more liberally, it is because we do not face any restrictions like we would with non-free images. For example, we try to avoid giving readers a so-called "wall" of text, so we can use a quote box or a freely licensed image of someone who is mentioned in a given section. We human beings are visual creatures, so images are nice to have among text. Sometimes the liberal use is over-the-top for freely licensed images. For example, I remember disliking Barton Fink#Fascism having an image of Hitler because it is not very pertinent to the text just because someone said "Hitlerian", but I did not contest it too much because it is more about discretion than trying to determine an exception to copyright restrictions through fair use. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of Sight

When you have a chance, can you take a look at this image? Johnandmitchy has added it to the above film article, twice, and I have removed it both times, arguing its use is not justified. Looking at the image page, though, I see that he is claiming to be the image's author, stating that it is an "on set photo from extra." But, looking here, we see the same image, and it is clearly a screen grab from the movie. This makes his claim verifiably false. Is the image then eligible for deletion? I would like to know what you think about this, please. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I messaged him and removed the image. It helps to message the other editor to at least establish a line of communication. I do agree with you about the licensing issue, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I should have messaged him directly. Though, I see that your attempt to communicate with him did not come to much. Still, point taken. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

inre Godzilla (2012 film project)

I see my using "ref name=" and having moved the actual references to the ref section made it easier to excize the ones you did not use... though your striping down to what you feel "really matters" might cause an eventual reinsertion of some of the sourced content if other editors and readers themselves feel it "really matters" (chuckle). Appreciate your efforts. Nice rewrite. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the article read like a stream of consciousness. Is he the director??? Oh no, nevermind. Is this script for the film??? Oh no, nevermind. Et cetera. I know there is a desire to figure out what is happening, but we need to stick to truly reliable sources and pass on the concrete reports of what is actually happening. If this film ever gets made, then so much more will be written that will actually matter, most especially how this new Godzilla will be designed and how it will be received. We need to avoid guessing beforehand about whether or not a certain design is going to be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps re-insert the confirmed producers, as verified in THR ? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. CPea

I added that review, but I couldn't quite make out the name either. It appears to be initials from some author. It is displayed exactly as it appears in the article. Was it necessary though to delete the piece? I believe this particular film critic has some sort of credibility. Here are a list of other reviews with his name tag:

DeWaine (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about it on the film article's talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Maria Hill in The Avengers

Please come to the discussion at Talk:The Avengers (film project)#Maria Hill. I would like to hear your opinion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You were right about Maria Hill; I had searched Marie Hill by accident, whoops. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Come back to the discussion an editor might have found a valid source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch

I was just about to revert that reversion myself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Johnandmitchy

I can't figure out him, or what he's up to, and it is becoming difficult to assume good faith. Before finding that image he added to Out of Sight, I had never encountered him before. Nor did I look far into his edit history. But, now that you have found these other borderline images, one has to wonder how many more there might be. I hope that he responds to your message and we can get some answers. Thanks for your efforts. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's something interesting: the summary for File:Altmanpressconference.jpg is tagged with the year 1998. But, as you can see from this picture, which clearly comes from the same press conference, this is the Toronto International Film Festival in 2000. Now, the image he uploaded is not included in the series on this webpage, so I cannot say with certainty that it is not his work, but it is interesting that the year is off. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Good catch! What did you use to find similar images? I tried using TinEye but it did not procure any results for me. I do agree that this is strange inconsistency, especially factored with his other image-related actions. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, here we have it! The exact image, credited to Christine Chew of UPI. I simply searched Google for Shelley Long and Toronto International Film Festival, and it was not sweat. Searching for Robert Altman, originally, I got a lot of hits, but many were not relevant. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! How did you find it? Just Googled for it? I feel like I may need to review the editor's text contributions to the various film articles now. I'm concerned they may not be genuine. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I think our suspicion is now well-founded. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to keep your eye on User:ScooterWeintraub77. He shares Johnny's singular fixation with actress Nancy Allen. Could be coincidence, but maybe not. The timing seems peculiar. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Jhenderson777's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Although check this and this out. I am not sure I recommend it. Does seem kind of redundant. Jhenderson 777 22:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Superman: Man of Steel

Where do you think this should be redirected to. Notice that where it's redirected to it's called Superman:THE Man of Steel and the future film is supposedly reported to be named precisely after this redirect. Jhenderson 777 16:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the current redirect is fine, though we could clean up the hatnote at that comic book series article. We could have a hatnote that points to the planned film section and put the video game links on a disambiguation page. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
In that case. Superman:Man of Steel should be redirected there too. No? There's more than one reason why I brought it up! Jhenderson 777 19:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla project

I know that you've debated this article after the verdict went to 'keep'. This is the second AfD that was declined on the article. (Which is a surprise to me as I usually lose arguments of this nature) I ask that you please hold off another AfD for a month or more. I respect all of your points, and am happy that you've cleaned out the fanboy junk. I will keep an eye on the text with an eye to not allowing the crap back in. Your links to various MOS essays and points have enhanced my knowledge of Wikipedia greatly and I hope I can do as good a job. Of course, it's not -mine- and you may want to watch it yourself. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not plan to start another AFD; it would be gaming the system. I just don't think that this project in development is a particular exception to the notability guidelines for future films. The bar has been set pretty low for so-called "rare" project articles. However, if events change, such as production truly stumbling, there may be a discussion to merge. Don't get me wrong, I like to report discussion on future films, whether planned or in production, but plans should not be regarded so highly. Anyway, there's always something else to worry about (just fleshed out Soul Surfer (film) last night), so hopefully we will cross paths on more agreeable terms. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Soul Surfer (film)

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources show the sItuation has indeed changed...

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy New Year (2011 film) (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's now an appropriate time for this article.. even needing the work it does. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Erik (talk | contribs) 23:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Paramount Pictures films

I noticed you rvd a suspected sock edit. There are lots of edits that are too numerous/hard to check, especially recent IPs. Sources are rarely given. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. Let me get back to you later today. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I will have to make this short. There was an editor named Pricer1980 (talk · contribs) who was banned for adding indiscriminate and false company information. Here are some ANI discussions in chronological order: 1, 2, and 3. The editor now uses IP sockpuppets, and it is a different IP address every other day or so. I started a sub-page here that listed the various articles by the different IPs. You can see that some studio articles are on that list (though not Paramount). It's usually suspect when an IP starts adding company information, and if the additions are same as before, it's likely a sockpuppet. I'm monitoring the studio articles currently, and one can follow up on the IP contributions once identified. Here are some other SSPs at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pricer1980. There are also 2-3 discussions at WT:FILM about IP socks of the editor, seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Having fun at Mankurt

Seems under its Russian spelling "Манкурт" book and news sources are available by adding the release year or writer into searches. The term Mankurt appears to be a rough translation only... as it also translates as "Manwolf" and "bird-minded". I'm finding enough in books that it seems this director's final film had made it into the enduring record. Of course, I've trimmed all the extraneous commentary about the novel and the neologism from the article as I've been sourcing. Interesting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, your Google fu is stronger than mine. :) I'll revisit the AFD later today. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. My latest thought, in comparing the original version of the article to its current version, is that if kept, the now article-about-a-film can be moved to Mankurt (film) as a dis-ambig, and the "word" mankurt can be set as a clean redirect to the novel as suggested at the AFD... specially as Wikipedia's coverage of Soviet film is somewhat lacking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need to disambiguate. We can have the film article at Mankurt with a hatnote pointing to the novel (with a brief explanation as to why). After all, if we only have one stand-alone topic on Wikipedia that uses a certain title, it is the primary topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Only thought of the disambig because the term Mankurt is so well covered at the novel article... but I do like the hatnote idea. [1] :) Also, got lucky and found numerous Turkish articles covering the filming... and archived the pages with webcite. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Frontier Boys

The Frontier Boys is now looking better... enough independent secondary sources to push at WP:GNG and not too bad for an indie film that only just had its premiere. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, figured it retained notability. Just wanted to make a nudge at first. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Expendables 2

Why do you do it ? - The Castbreeder (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The article The Expendables was created 2 years before the film was released, while «The Expendables 2» scheduled for release next year - The Castbreeder (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It's too many information for working on the section - The Castbreeder (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Unisol fan poster

Disruptive editing

You posted in the discussion, so it was obviously clear to you this is a NEW template under DISCUSSION and therefore needs EXAMPLES for that discussion to take place. Is that clear enough for you? We would all appreciate it if in future you would Assume Good Faith and allow a discussion to be completed before taking things into your own hands and deleting just because you "feel like it". There's no consensus yet, imo, but so far the clear preference is to keep the template. Consider this a warning for disruptive editing - I don't know what else to call what you did, as I'm amazed you could read the comments so far and believe nobody's opinion counts except your own. Just incredible. Flatterworld (talk)

The guidelines are very clear on the matter; Wikipedia is not a link farm. I reviewed the examples at True Grit and the other article, and they went against the guidelines. We have had issues with people trying to add as many external links as possible across all film articles, and this would only encourage them. In regard to using examples, we can link to an old revision where the template was used. I've formatted the article in a certain way and reverted myself and linked to that revision as part of a re-formatting discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Erik, your opinion is just that: your opinion. Period. And it's worth no more than anyone else's. Didn't anyone ever tell you that before? It's clear from the discussion that many people don't agree with you. You do NOT have the right to slam your way through Wikipedia ordering everyone around, shutting down discussions, claiming you alone know the definition of a 'link farm', deleting whatever you don't like and insisting on linking to an old revision - presumably in the hope no one will find it, buried in the discussion. In all of Wikipedia, there is one (1) example of a current movie, and one (1) example of a British movie, as they each have a different set of possible links. I've just about had it with your bullying attitude. If you want your own encyclopedia with your own rules, you're free to create one. Consider this a second warning. Flatterworld (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Flatterworld, the appropriate websites to use as external links are "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." In addition, we should avoid "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." For example, a link to Rotten Tomatoes is ideal because it provides access to a large number of reviews instead of listing all the reviews in the "External links" section. However, most of the external links are databases that will not necessarily be unique resources and can be redundant to each other. For example, at IMDb, there is a full list of cast and crew information. Other databases provide that information, but not necessarily in a comprehensive manner. My concern with the shell template is that it encourages external linking especially to websites that do not always meet the EL criteria. For example, the TCM database is not particularly informative about films of recent years, where it would be okay (depending on its content) for so-called classic films. This is covered in MOS:FILM#External links. I understand if you disagree with my concern that the presence of the shell template will encourage external linking instead of internal linking and content-contributing, but I do not think the template is a net positive. For example, people reuse the film infobox template and get some parameters wrong, but it is favorable to Wikipedia because most of the parameters are useful to help describe a film. This shell template does not benefit from having as many parameters as possible filled out. Wikipedia says it is not a repository of links. It wants to be an encyclopedia, not a way station where readers go off-wiki. (talk | contribs)
keeping related discussion in one place Flatterworld (talk)

You can link to an old revision to show how a template is used. It does not need to be live in the mainspace. In addition, two links at True Grit do not meet WP:EL criteria and just make up a link farm. The other parameters are also not needed. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I revert myself partially so all of the parameters are displayed, although we do not need to have external links for two of them per the EL criteria. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering, how do you see the {{FilmLinks}} template being used? There are eleven parameters right now. Would you endorse filling all the parameters if a film happened to have a page at each of these websites? Do you want to link to Rotten Tomatoes even if it has just three reviews? Or Box Office Mojo if it has no more statistics than can be reported in the article body? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what - why don't you come up with a movie that CAN use all those possible links? I sure couldn't find one, and if you had actually looked at the links, the non-likelihood of that would have been obvious to you. I really don't understand why you're so determined to be a control freak about this. You really think all of Wikipedia will descend into utter chaos if contributors can see all the major film sources in one place? Really? Some reader will jump off a cliff because a link didn't happen to lead him to ten pages of scholarly research on Film A? omg - what if the link changes over time and you don't catch it! Will the world end? (Clue: at some point all 'new' movies become 'old' or 'classic' movies.) As for "three reviews" - well, if those are the only reviews available, I expect some people would be thrilled to find them. Maybe not you, but you really aren't The Only Person in The World. Mojo statistics? I would think it pretty obvious that no one would know Mojo didn't have any additional statistics to what was in the article unless they looked at its entry. Which means a link to it is NOT out of place - hardly rocket science. Any researcher knows that what's not there is as important as what is there. If it's a major source source, then it's a major source. If you don't like a particular entry, then email the database people and demand them to expand their entry. I just don't see why you're so determined to enforce your personal preferences on others, claiming yourself to be the ultimate arbiter. Bullying is bullying, and it's why Wikipedia is losing editor numbers and the demographics of the remaining editors are becoming ever more narrow. Clue: it's not about using "nice words", it's about your basic intent and attitude. Flatterworld (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Breathe, fellow editor! We both know that at the end of the day, it's just a website. I am actually reconsidering the merits of your template, and believe me, your responses are not helping too much. :) First of all, WP:EL in a nutshell says, "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." I am interested in including external links that have merit. For example, if a Rotten Tomatoes link has only three reviews, that means that we can reference all three reviews (if they are considered reliable sources) in the article body and avoid linking to RT. With Box Office Mojo, I think we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I am arguing that if Box Office Mojo does not have any statistical information beyond what can be in the article body, then it should not be an external link because there is no content on the page that merits its inclusion. Are you arguing that we should include Box Office Mojo by default just to demonstrate that it has no merit? We should provide the reader a link to a page that does not have any new information? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You might want to check my user contributions before continuing with your condescending attitude. Or not. Let me be perfectly clear: I don't like your attitude, starting with your first post in the Deletion discussion. You want to blame me for my 'responses' to that? Go right ahead. And do continue to use lots of smiley faces if you think that makes up for your previous comments. As for your arguments, they are just that: yours. I have pointed out that not all users share your views, and different people use Wikipedia to find different information. Your only response is to argue that you're right (including the absurd idea that your personal definition and list of 'linkfarm' is the only correct one) which means they're wrong. There's no arguing with that, so I won't waste my time trying. Let me remind you how this started: an immediate demand to delete a generalized template for films. A concept. You labeled that abuse. Now you're trying to shift your argument to content and format, which is where it should have been in the first place - on the template's Talk page. And you're trying to keep this discussion "off the books" by having it on a user Talk page. Golly gosh gee whiz. Flatterworld (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTFILM

Hi, Erik; I hope you are not too busy to look into this. Front of the Class (film), a Hallmark Hall of Fame film, was created. To my knowledge, it does not meet WP:NOTFILM. Could you look at the sources in Brad Cohen#Hallmark Hall of Fame movie and let me know if I'm wrong? See Talk:Brad Cohen#Notability, where I've listed two sources I'm aware of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. I Googled a little bit, and I think that the topic is notable. The Hollywood Reporter covered the casting, and there was a review later. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a review. The Washington Post article from Brad Cohen provides a little background about Welk being cast as Cohen. I think that the reviews in particular help provide critical analysis of the TV movie, so it's not just snippets of what actors did for their roles. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Erik-- now I'll set about doing the work :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem! Let me know if you want me to help with the article or any additional research. I can dig a little deeper. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll ping you when I'm done with the initial cleanup, so you can review the organization of the article, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, got the sources in and did some initial cleanup, but haven't expanded yet to include critical reception, etc-- do you have time to look at the basic structure or anything that should be added? I'm going to be busy the rest of the day. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a few minor tweaks, but overall, it looks good! Reception section would be a plus. I would also mention the CBS airing in the "Release" section, too. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Eric-- I have to be in an "inspirational" mood to start writing new content, and less busy as well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be traveling and won't be able to expand the article just yet. If you get bored and want to have at it, go for it! Otherwise, end of March for me (and I have to locate the book, which is in a box somewhere 'round here). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Plot

I'd say that the entire ethos of WP:V and WP:PLOT make it clear that concise, verified summaries are the best kind of summaries. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why?

How could you approve of the removal of the Prec/Foll parameters in the Film Infobox's? They made things much easier and they've been a part of the Wikipedia Film Page Tradition for a while now. Just because there was a sudden disagreement on the Batman film franchise and the James Bond film franchise you decide it to be okay to remove them.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus decided this, not just Erik. —Mike Allen 03:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Valkyrie, Mike is right. You can see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I did read the discussion, but the fact that the Head Coordinator agreed to this just upsets me.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
None of the coordinators have more of a voice than other editors. There is more of an expectancy for them to be involved with the behind-the-scenes tasks of WikiProject Film, but that is it. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. Things ran by much better with the old Leader.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Valkyrie, none of the coordinators have no veto power. Even if I supported keeping the parameters, there was a significant consensus opposed to having them due to frequent issues. There is no "leader" who would have changed the outcome of the discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

One Night (2010 film)

Why do you want to delete the article ? - Jackie Chuck (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The topic does not meet any of the notability guidelines, like WP:GNG or WP:NF. Are you able to provide significant coverage from reliable, independent sources about the film? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Trailer - Jackie Chuck (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the trailer does not count as a reliable source. I don't doubt that the film exists, but being notable means "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For example, this has Gruner mentioning the film, but the source is not reliable per WP:RS. We need reliable sources discussing the film, and my research so far does not show any coverage. I've asked someone else to see if he can find anything. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Me doing this should raise a few eyebrows...

I believe after years of improving articles, this is actually the very first I ever sent to AFD. Could you check my creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Night (2010 film) to make sure I did not miss a step? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[grin] Looks like you did it right. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You do good work.

... just an observation. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Happy editing! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Damn straight :P Btw, if you want me to chime in at the Lawrence talk page as to what I said here, I'd be happy to. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries, it's not a key issue for me. I'll bring up the matter at a future peer review. Right now, I need to do a monstrous amount of research and try to get the momentum going to improve the main article and the sub-articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik/Archive_23&oldid=1083231777"