Jump to content

User talk:Erik/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Erik, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Film talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Help for additional MPAA revisions

Hey Erik, Thanks again for your help on the MPAA article. I've just posted a rewrite that I'd like to propose regarding the "Anti-piracy efforts" and "Controversies and criticisms" sections over at Talk:MPAA. I took your previous advice about framing the controversial stuff in terms of the MPAA as a whole, so I'm especially keen to get your feedback on this. If you have a chance, could you take a look? Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Zal Batmanglij

I am a fan of Zal and Brit. I looked at other young directors Jeff Nichols, Sean Durkin, Mike Cahill and more. I didn't see parents' names or orientation. Nichols has even made more films. Those elements distract from clean prose of your original bio (I assume you wrote bio). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finalfantasyairplane (talk • contribs) 01:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Ok i understand what you mean. Koala15 (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Searching for sources

I always search for sources. I'm confused about why you thought it would be better to ask me that than to mention how the sources that you saw show notability. SL93 (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

SL93, Google Books shows a lot of immediate and relevant results about the very topic. I think it should be kept with ease and will say so soon. I'm just wondering if you did not see these results? Erik (talk | contribs) 04:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll comment at the AfD. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
No one does the same exact searches which I never understood why there are editors who don't seem to realize that. SL93 (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
SL93, how did you originally search for the topic? I tend to use quotation marks around each important term. Sometimes I focus on a specific year because it can show the best result of a given time period from the entire pile of results. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Runner, Runner refs

I don't mind that you removed the citations or refs, but I will warn you that SummerPhD will complain about having "unsourced" information next to everything. That's why there were a bunch of {cn} tags are next to the entire cast list in addition to the characters they play. Just saying Lady Lotus (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Lady Lotus, I think the poster should sufficiently address crew members. Cast members are a different can of worms. While I'm not crazy about all these tags, for upcoming films, cast members' names (especially from IMDb) can be iffy. Best course of actions is to Google for these names tied with the film and see if there are any articles confirming their casting. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

commendations

Dear Erik, You wrote the Real Steel article really well! Thank you. Could you please direct me to the soundtracks information for the movie, i.e., which "music only" score belonged to which part of the film? Since they don't contain lyrics it is hard to identify which is which! Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bkpsusmitaa, thank you! I think I can only take credit for the "Production" section; I like patching together development history. :) Unfortunately, I never got to see this film, and I am not too familiar with these "Music from the Motion Picture" albums. Maybe it is fair to say that all the songs are in the movie, as opposed to an album that would be called "Music Inspired By the Motion Picture"? Obviously, not all songs would play in full. If you'd like a better answer, you could ask at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: World War Z

The Half Barnstar
No, thank you. Working with editors like you makes it easy. You embody the spirit of Collaborative editing.-- TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: The Search for Spock

Thanks for the discussion on the talk page. As for the cast tables, the layout you've got certainly solves the whitespace issues, but I find that templates tend to bring out the worst in terms of "why isn't this person included", etc., and what the cutoff of for who gets listed, especially for an ensemble cast. It's another infobox issue, basically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

David, could you not say that about any cast list, though? I think that an ensemble film would benefit even more from table navigation because an ensemble film means more names embedded in prose. Readers will have to scan the whole thing to get a sense of who is in the film. I do not think it is like the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary. I like the anchor link from the infobox to "Cast", but I think that the anchor link implies that we cannot list all the names here, so go below to see them. But the names in "Cast" are not truly listed for any kind of looking-up. As for the cutoff, could we not follow a discriminate standard set up elsewhere? For example, the official site seems usable here. This mentions a fair number of characters, and this mentions the "main" characters of the bunch (so they can go above the larger list, which is not ordered by prominence). Would that be worth a try? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't really have any strong opinions either way. I'm not going to start throwing cast tables into articles I work on but I'm not opposed to their addition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle Track Summer

Using the Wayback Machine, I was able to find enough independent sources to expand and improve the article. But I still think its noteworthiness is too local. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael, I reviewed the policies and guidelines, and I am not seeing any local constraints. Maybe what applies here is WP:NOT#NEWS. Even so, there seem to be enough details about the film from secondary sources as a whole, as they can be considered reliable. Maybe this could be kept as a Stub-class article without all the sections and maybe a truncated film infobox? We don't need to waste a lot of structure on what can be a brief blurb. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Its a short start class now.[1] Changed from weak del to weak keep. Here's the film itself. Redneck funny. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Invited to the noticeboard

You are invite to discuss the disruptive editing by 37.117.127.158 on here. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your input, please...

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor: Young Caesar.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
  • I paid attention to what you proposed at the AFD, which is why I also created an alternate target at Conn Iggulden#Emperor series film adaptation... a section which can be expanded if other adaptations of his works are contemplated and receive coverage. Whether this title is considered searchable enough to be worth redirecting or not, at least sourced information has been preserved to serve our readers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Gertie the Dinosaur

Hi! I don't normally go begging for FAC reviewers, but you expressed an interest in following up your feedback to Gertie the Dinosaur. Would you be interested in giving its nomination another peek? Thanks either way! Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, thanks for the nudge! I've been out of town recently. I'll take a look today. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Belated response

Hello Erik. While I was sad to see that there were no responses to your post here [2] I wasn't entirely surprised. Everything that you state there is proper and correct. The problem is that, long ago I am afraid, the rules regarding civility stopped being equally applied. I think you know that some editors, due to their content contributions, cannot be blocked no matter how ugly their treatment of other editors is. This has even been etched in internet stone by Arbcom in a few cases. Thus we get things like this [3] on a regular basis. While I can't speak for anyone else I can say that I look down at my keyboard in despair when things heat up and the invective starts flying. If it were up to me I would reduce the pillars to four and move on. Now, I know that is a defeatist attitude and that is one reason why I admire editors like you who want to get back to that ideal. Oh well, I don't mean to be a downer about this but I didn't want you to think that your post was entirely ignored. In an attempt to make up for it I want to recommend Howl (film). I don't know how I missed it when it came out but it knocked my socks off when I saw it last month. Lots of ideas were explored in it and a group discussion at the non-corporate coffee house could go on for hours :-). I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comment. :) Civility is definitely an ideal goal and one worth striving for. I think what needs to be done is to be able to admonish one another, preferably in private. (It is hard to do that, even in the real world with family and friends.) So much of the misconduct is so low-level that it does not warrant action, but it does erode professional relationships over time. I'm glad you read the post, and I hope others did as well and have reflected on their behavior. Anyway, I have added Howl to my Netflix queue. I just watched The American last night (mainly because I accidentally bumped that to the top when I meant to bump up something else). It was good—slow but well-shot—but I probably would not go out of my way to recommend. I hope you have a great weekend too! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for passing along your thoughts about the film. I spent last night with my new bluray of Grand Prix (1966 film). Frankenheimer sure did explore a number of film techniques in this film and Jarre created another memorable film score. I forgot to add my usual caveat that, even though I raved about it, you might not like Howl as much as I did, or at all for that matter. But I do think you will find it interesting. Do you have Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment‎ on your watchlist? Interesting and/or fun film questions come up there and it is one place where WP:OR is actually encouraged :-) MarnetteD | Talk 14:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
MarnetteD, I know about WP:RD/E and have looked at some of the RD threads from time to time. :) I've also watched some older films on Blu-ray when I can. I've actually used the meta-list that we use for WP:FILMCORE to check off some of the very top films. (Still need to see Rules of the Game, Bicycle Thieves, etc.) I'm always up for something different, although I have to say the last movie that really just bored me was Holy Motors, despite all the critical hype. I could tell it was something well-done, but it was such a chore to stay into it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for writing on Randomuser's talk, hopefully he'll listen to you a little more than he was willing to take on board my advice! :-)  drewmunn  talk  13:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Anyway, not the end of the world that the film is the primary topic, though I wish I could have done the nickname article early in the RM discussion. :-P I did notice your efforts, though, and commend you for trying. I hope you're doing well, though, and that you have a good holiday weekend! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheers! I would have certainly liked your article to take precedence; it makes much more sense in the overall scheme of things. Maybe in a few months (if we hear anything more about the new DC universe, especially) they'll be grounds for a move back and then it can be put forward as an alternative to a redirect/DAB. Hope you have a good weekend, too.  drewmunn  talk  13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
PS: am I the only one not seeing the page move? Even with an empty cache (and on a different device) it's still at "(film)" and the history has no sign of a move...  drewmunn  talk  14:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't been moved. It looks like user:Nathan Johnson had closed it as a Move (disregarding consensus) simply to push it to WP:MR, at least that's what the noticeboard closing sounds like. || Tako (bother me) || 16:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Dark Knight

re: The Dark Knight (nickname) article. Well done. Thumbs up. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hah! I just made the connection with what I wrote and your user page. Thanks! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 23:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit the article or send people directly to sources because of my conflict of interest, but there was an effort to get Bill Finger credited officially as the originator of the Dark Knight nickname. This came up in connection with the film The Dark Knight. DC wouldn't do it. They've got some tricky limits on them because of Kane's original contract. That effort demonstrates the importance of the nickname. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A Field in England

Hmm... I'm not totally opposed to hover-over, but it seems really inconvenient for a number of reasons -- for instance, it doesn't work on most mobile phone or tablet browsers, and it means we can't wikilink the names. -- Zcbeaton (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Zcbeaton, you make a good point about accessibility. The thing is, because the plot summary and the cast list are next to each other, I was not planning to add actors' names within the summary anyway. Maybe if the summary was expanded to between 400 and 700 words, it would warrant that. I may even just tuck in the cast list above the plot summary if that happens, like at Surf Ninjas. As you can see, kind of experimenting with better ways. Panic Room is another kind of experiment. What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting -- I like the cast template on the Panic Room page. Maybe slip something like that into the summary section? That would be a mix of both approaches, essentially. In any case, you make a fair point that the cast list is so nearby, so I'll leave it up to you. -- Zcbeaton (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a right-aligned table in the summary winds up below the film infobox. It is "pushed" there. I'm not sure if there's a way to deal with it. For A Field in England, since the summary is short now, I'd like to keep the hover-over feature. If the summary expands, I'll play around more with it. But it's a good point about mobile devices... hover-over can't replace other ways to display the cast. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If this hovering method is to be implemented, it should be discussed at the MOS. However, I'd strongly suggest against it, per WP:CLICKHERE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:CLICKHERE applies here; it talks about being self-referential. The very end of the section says, "It may be helpful to imagine writing the article for a print encyclopedia." That itself indicates that it has to do with writing style. Anyway, Betty Logan was the one to suggest applying hover-over, and I wanted to give it a trial run here. We should be able to innovate new approaches. This is one article out of many; it is not detrimental to try out this approach. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Betty, if you can comment at Talk:A Field in England instead. Rob started a discussion there that I missed initially. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

Since you participated in a relevant prior move discussion for Dazed and Confused, I hereby invite you to comment in the new discussion that I just opened. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Gertie

Well, thank you very much, sir! I'll be sure to inform you when I propose Gertie for TFA early next year. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on Prometheus

User Eric above makes a point worth agreeing with. Howland is not the only authority on this film. Following the other editor's comments, even if 4 of Taylor's 8 points are covered, then that still leaves the other 4 not covered here to include in this very short section on themes. If the other editor has information that Taylor is a bad author then the previously unused mythological references can still be absorbed by someone into the text of this page directly. There is no copyright on the use of the names of mythological gods. They can be freely incorporated into the text especially if there is a bad report about Taylor as an author. 12.168.46.153 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Note...

A discussion elsewhere brought my attention to The Harvest (2010 film) and a proposal on its talk page. I've done my research, tagged that talk page with my results, and will per WP:NCF be moving the article to its proper title in a couple days. And yes, after the move, I will clean up redirects. Just thought to ping you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm having second thoughts toward The Harvest (2011 film), though I still think a move is correct. When infobox film instructs "Insert only the most relevant release date(s) of the film", my initial thought was toward the sourcable 2011 theatrical release, as I believe per sources and reviews that 2011 is the most relevant. However, Template:Infobox film#Release dates states "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings". This had a limited screening September 16 2009, at a panel discussion at U.S. Department of Labor,[4] and did have several festival screenings in 2010 where it gained media recognition. Now I'm thinking The Harvest (2009 film) is the proper move choice per guideline instruction. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you do the honors

Hello Erik. I suspect that you will notice the closure of this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Marc Lawrence/Hugh Grant Comedy as keep. I thought that I would let you perform the interim move that we discussed as no one else seemed to pick up on it. Cheers and have a nice Sunday. MarnetteD | Talk 03:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I already took care of it when I got home last night. :) And this morning, just fixed all the links. May you have a nice Sunday as well! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Wait I thought that 2 of us had agreed on "Steve McQueen (no, not THAT Steve McQueen)" heehee. Just kidding. Thanks for following through on this move as well. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hahaha. I got a chuckle out of it myself, believe me. When I first heard about Hunger, I was wondering if it was the actor taking up directing in his late years... Wikipedia corrected me, of course. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

MarnetteD, do you have any thoughts about my posting about WP:ACTOR here? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Today is a bit on the frenetic side and i want to have time to give you a full response. I may be able to get back to you this evening but, in case I didn't, I don't want you to think I am ignoring this request. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Well the morning after leaving the above message my computer went down and I've only just gotten it back. Just wanted you to know I am not ignoring this and I'll get back to ya when I get caught up. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

List of films featuring powered exoskeletons

Hello, instead of creating a see also section for all these articles, I wonder if it might be better served by creating a category, say Category:Films featuring powered exoskeletons, with a link to the list article at the top in the category's description.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, is the crux of the issue that in some film articles, there is a "See also" section with just one link? We can create categories, but I have created lists because we can provide a reference for each item. My intent with these lists is to promote cross-navigation of Wikipedia articles of films that share common content (diabetes, home invasions, surveillance, hallucinogens, slavery, space stations, and now powered exoskeletons). I am not sure if a similar category would be as visible as a "See also" link to the list article. I'd rather that we can figure out a way to link the articles together directly. It is just a byproduct of cross-navigation that there are some film articles that have just one item. Panic Room#See also has three lists, and my goal with Elysium (film)#See also (which has two lists) was to take advantage of the key elements of the film to get readers exploring similar such topics. Can we not think of additional topics (common content or otherwise) to add to "See also" sections, such as List of American films of 2012? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: To show that such lists have value, The Purge linked to List of films featuring home invasions, and this was the traffic result. We do not have a similar category for a direct comparison, but if we look at Category:Films set in 2022 (which is as specific to the film as it gets, though not topically similar), we see this, which is only a mild increase. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Basically yes, its just kind of personal preference. But I can deal with it, you seem to feel more strongly about it anyway, with good justification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, the list looks a bit incomplete. I can think of some others but not sure if I can find references to back them up. Also our you including Mecha under the scope?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume you're thinking of Pacific Rim (film). :) I thought about that too. I did not seem to find connections between that film and the word "exoskeleton". It might be that powered exoskeletons are closer to human size, and mecha might be distinct from that grouping. Maybe because there is more than one controller for mecha? I'm not familiar with mecha movies. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was. Also the same suits featured in Matrix Revolutions are briefly seen in Matrix Reloaded.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I found this that mentions Matrix Reloaded and Pacific Rim. Maybe we could use that. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Good find, also you may wish to qualify in the lead that the list is only for live-action feature films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added them and made the change you suggested. EDIT: Do you think we should have a "Description" column explaining the element in each film? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I am usually very weary of such sections, as they are prone to fancruft, over abundance of detailed in-universe information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Meet the Parents

Hi,

I think WP:FILMCAST prescribes bullet lists as appropriate for Stub-class articles and then states "When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways." This is a GA-class article with a well developed prose section on casting as well as having the major cast members listed in the lead and infobox. Would this bullet list not be redundant? The bullet list was inserted several times over the last few years and quickly removed by established editors citing redundancy. Has consensus changed on this? 24.55.216.27 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

24.55.216.27, maybe the guidelines need to be reworded better, even though we had revamped them in the past year or so. Stub-class articles usually have "a basic cast list", and developing the article means that we could have detailed bullets for each key actor and role, like what one would see in a superhero film article. Secondary actors and roles can also be grouped in prose below these detailed bullets. Another approach is to have the cast list be part of another section, such as being embedded in the plot summary or next to cast-related content. For example, Panic Room#Cast does this. I personally like that approach because I think it is important to have a cast list in some form so readers can look it up with ease. There's a line of thinking that the key actors are named and linked in the plot summary, so we don't need a cast list. I disagree with that and think that some redundancy is acceptable if we can provide better navigation of the names of actors and their roles that does not require readers to go through the summary. Like I mentioned below, I think editors have a distaste for cast lists because of the extraneous white space that is created to the right of such lists. That's why I try to put a list in multiple columns, or next to prose, like I did for Panic Room. Do you think there can be a better way to embed the cast list for Meet the Parents? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dividers in cast section in film sections

I don't really find dividers and columns in cast section in film articles that useful because it kind of gets some readers confused at times and it lists a less important actors and characters on the right side of the dividers. That's kind of problem with them. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

BattleshipMan, I suppose that's true. I guess it makes sense to me to read down the first column and resume reading at the top of the second. I like putting the cast list in multiple columns because it reduces the extraneous right space to the right of a list, which is a key reason why some editors dislike cast lists. I've tried to implement the cast list more naturally in other articles, like with Panic Room#Cast. What do you think we can do with Meet the Parents? Can we incorporate the cast list in a different way, such as within the "Plot" section or under the "Casting" subsection? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Erik, I don't know what to say about that. We have cast sections with brief character backgrounds in some of the film article, including Olympus Has Fallen#Cast and White House Down#Cast. Check that out. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Funny that you mention these articles, BattleshipMan. I added most of these in the first place. :) I think it is going to depend on the editor's preference for the film article. Do you think we should do something similar for Meet the Parents, especially to establish each character's relationship with another? Looking at the article again, it looks like the second-to-last paragraph does this already. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with the Meet the Parents at this point, Erik. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The columns often added to cast sections that you refer to as dividers are helpful to readers when a simple cast list (i.e. not a proper casting section and no longer character descriptions, which are usually just regurgitated plot summary anyway) runs long. They are often particularly helpful to readers who view the site from mobile devices. We are editing for the readers of the site, not ourselves. I have no idea why on earth an English reader would read the items in the manner in which you describe. I realize other languages read right to left and in other ways that would seem foreign to a native English speaker but first column then second column is pretty standard. Millahnna (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:My Neighbor Totoro#Ref

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:My Neighbor Totoro#Ref. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, a discussion is taking place on the Spirited Away talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Interstellar

I have never seen an article add the movie credits to the production section like that. The credits should only be in the infobox and plus you use Panic Room as an example but you added that there yourself. Koala15 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It says nothing about having to add credits to the production section in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film that's why i don't think we should add it. Koala15 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well in my opinion i'm not sure if the common Wikipedia reader is interested in who the production or costume designer is. If you really think it should be in the article i would maybe be in favor of adding those credits to a personnel section instead of production like we do with albums. Koala15 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

PG-13 films that drop the f-bomb

There I created it happy?

Yeah I noticed User:TreCoolGuy

No, Erik is most certainly not happy- I think. ZappaOMati 20:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy with the consensus at the CfD so far. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Jobs (film)

Hi Erik, Would you be interested in putting Jobs (film) on your watch list? It is just opening. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I've done so. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!-Classicfilms (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Another question on Jobs

I'm not sure if this material is worth adding and if so am not sure where it should go. Steve Wozniak responded to the trailer a few times and his responses led to this response by Ashton Kutcher -

Wozniak has seen the film and made the following comments on Gizmodo (which refer to the above). You are more experienced with film articles than I am, so I would really appreciate some insight...

-Classicfilms (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We could have a section like the one at Pirates of Silicon Valley#Jobs, Gates and Wozniak. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Ha ha - yeah, actually I created that section. Ok - it's been going on for awhile so it would mean tracking things down. Let me see when I can get to it - or if you want to start it, fine. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe what you could do is start with Wozniak's reaction to the film, then explore the events leading up to it? That way it can still belong in "Reception". It seems too mild of a skirmish to have a stand-alone section. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I like that approach. Want to start it for me? If you work with the basics I listed, I could fill in the blanks. It actually has been a pretty nasty back and forth that has been going on for months and has had an impact on the way reviewers are approaching the film. I think it should be there but since the tone is somewhat nasty, have been perplexed about approach. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, if it is a big fuss, maybe a stand-alone section is warranted. I don't know if I have time today; I am a bit touch-and-go. Over the weekend, maybe? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I could go either way - depends on how it is put together. As for time, same here - we all have real life to deal with. Yes, perhaps revisit over a few days. Let me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is some background for a future write up - January 24, the first clip of the film was released and Wozniak had a negative response to it:

(if you google this date there is a lot of write up from more notable RS but Gizmodo's page is comprehensive) January 25 - Wozniak is reported to be working for the other Jobs film (end of article)

Feb 3 - First set of responses from Kutcher and Gad

This sets the tone I mention above and is the context for the URLs I first posted. Ok, we can check in on how to put this together next week or so. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This URL contains an interview with two other early Apple people Daniel Kottke and Bill Fernandez - not sure if it works with the above but it might be useful to flesh out a section. These two individuals are definitely notable members of Apple history-

-Classicfilms (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a way with words.

Just wanted to say that it seems we've interacted a fair number of times lately and I've been very impressed by the diplomacy and clarity you exhibit in your comments. Given that I have a BA in English Writing...and/or that I'm just a snarky/snobby often-tactless grammar Nazi...it's not often that I look at things others have written and think, "Damn, how does he manage to do that so consistently?" I tip my hat to you, good sir! DonIago (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fast Five

This is neutral notice of a discussion concering the box-office section of Fast Five. Spinc5 (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Erik. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Richard Phillips (merchant mariner) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Phillips (merchant mariner) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Phillips (merchant mariner) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested

In expressing opinion at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#TedderBot_replacement. If enough people comment there, maybe something will finally happen. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Vigilante films

Hi Erik, was reading your correction. One of the basic Western plots has always been revenge (if variety is the spice of life, revenge is surely the sugar) and the article would have to include so many of them.Foofbun (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Help test better mass message delivery

Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new {{#target:}} parser function. For example, {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales}} or {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales|test2.wikipedia.org}}. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

im sorry

i am sorry :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.92.145 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Request

I would like to ask that you review and comment on this proposal on the Talk:Captain_Phillips_(film) page. Thanks - thewolfchild 19:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Changeling (film): fitted

Please see here. "Fit" can be a past participle, but it is certainly not used as the past tense of the verb "fit" in British English, I think also not in good American English. Here is sounds very strangled to me, so if for some reason you can't live with "fitted", perhaps you could bring in another verb. Moonraker (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This makes it clear that there is a difficulty when writing for a world audience. I have made it "was right for", as that avoids choosing "fit" or "fitted". Regards, Moonraker (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Moonraker, I like your outside-of-the-box style. :) The alternative wording works for me! Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 15:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Zophres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Man Who Wasn't There (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Juan Rico

Hi. I've replied to your comment on the Juan Rico talk page. RomanSpa (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot

Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nowrap

Sure, I don't mind that at all. Why don't we see the nowrap consistently, I wonder? Tony (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Tony1, glad to know. I wasn't sure if there was a different policy that contradicted the use of nowrap. I strive to use it in articles that I write. I think most people just don't think to use it. Hopefully there can be a tipping point in the near future where it's used frequently. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm alerting Ohconfucius to this thread: he manages the script, and may have had other reasons for including the function. Tony (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Europa Report

Thank you for your assistance with the problem editor on Europa Report. I felt a bit helpless, not knowing the proper protocol to ask for help, and am not sure my RfC was properly located or formatted. It's been a learning experience. Should I delete my RfC now, and if a similar situation happens again, what is the correct way to ask an admin for help? Thanks for your time! - Syd (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@Syd Midnight: Don't worry, it is a pain when a single editor is combative but not vandalizing in this kind of dispute. I do not think you needed to have an RfC; these are best had when editors presently involved with an article are at a stalemate (even after proper discussion). An RfC is meant to cast a wider net for additional input. You don't have to delete your RfC, but I would say to update the section with a comment explaining what has happened. If you go to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, you can find templates with which you can notify or warn certain editors that are not cooperating. Additionally, if you plan to continue to work on film articles, you can watchlist WT:FILM and post a notification there for additional input. I think that approach tends to be quicker than an RfC since the WikiProject Film community is pretty active. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, next time I'll use the template greetings and warnings, and look for a topical admin if it becomes an issue. I didn't know you could make a talk page for an IP. D'oh! I made a brief follow-up to the RfC. Thanks again for the help. - Syd (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Walking with Dinosaurs 3D

Hi Erik

I noticed the line I added was not showing up on the wiki. I thought I'd done something wrong, redid it then realized you had edited it to remove the item. The contribution is more of an "interesting fact" so I created a Trivia section, added it there and removed my previous contribution. Hope that was ok? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.62.32 (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@208.71.62.32: Hello! I removed it before, but I did not remove it today. Another editor did. We discourage trivia sections in Wikipedia articles. I think it could be worth including Marenghi if there is any coverage about his involvement with this film, but it is still too early. I think there will probably be some visual effects articles that will be published when the film is released, and we can reference those. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
OK - sorry about the trivia thing - my bad. Marenghi is featured here [1] and extensively in the EPK. He was the only person on the production side to be retained from the original BBC series, which is why it's interesting. He was brought in as the creature performance specialist to work with and head up Animal Logic's animation team for this show (only). Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.62.32 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
@208.71.62.32: I am not able to view the video since I am not from the UK. Can you detail what was mentioned in the video? Does the video itself state that Marenghi was the only one retained from the original BBC series? If you could provide a transcript of the Marenghi-related details, I can incorporate it into the article body, probably in the animation paragraph of the "Production" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It's here on youtube [2] It doesn't reference the fact that he worked on both but IMDB does. I know you guys don't like using IMDB as a source so gimme a mo and I'll see if I can dig it up somewhere else. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.62.32 (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
@208.71.62.32: There may not be coverage available yet. I've tried to keep the Wikipedia article up to date with the latest news, but more will come out this month when the film gets released. My preference is to report connections that have already been noted elsewhere, since we know that such connections are noteworthy independent of Wikipedia. In my opinion, it's easy to make different observations, like to say that this actor and this director worked together three times, but since Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary sources, we should use these to substantiate connections. For example, in the Wikipedia article, I mentioned Barry Cook's previously directed works since the Yahoo! Movies article mentioned them. By the way, to add a signature, you can type four tildes (~). You can also indent your comment by using colons at the beginning of it. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! I think we just submitted simultaneously. I was going to post these articles for you [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.62.32 (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I like the first one the best! I might need to create a subsection under "Production" section to include these new details, and I can probably name Marenghi and his previous experience with the miniseries there. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.62.32 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned Marenghi in the article. It will take a little time to summarize the technical detail at the Travel Adventure source; it is too much to include everything. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated - thank you Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.62.32 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Page is LOOKING GOOD! Great job Erik! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.96.78 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 05:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fuck thank you

Thanks for your help at Fuck (film), much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just want to say, that's a hilarious subhead! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

a favor

Can I ask you a favor, Erik? When you have the time? Jhenderson 777 15:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: I'm kind of touch-and-go these days. What's up? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's regarding the AFD here. I am in agreement of the nominator but I have ideas on how it can maybe be a constructive article. I was just thinking you are the kind of editor to maybe fix it up. Jhenderson 777 16:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I have a hard time making the time to fix up articles. I think what you said at the AfD is sound. At some previous film series articles, I tried to ID a critic who reviewed all or most of the films and tried to string the reviews together. The overall challenge, though, is how to choose relevant reviews (especially from different critics) and to put them together so everything flows. It's pretty hard to do because reviews are individual, and it can be original research to infer a group mentality about an element of the film. One experimental approach I took was at A Field in England where I grouped by subject. It makes for small subsections with this film, though, and I don't like how that looks. Why do you think a stand-alone article is warranted? While I try to be flexible about having articles with different scopes, I think this may be a bit dense since there are so many reviews to go with. Unless there is a way to structure such an article to be uniquely compelling. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's just me supporting a old page I helped create. So I sort of feel responsibility over if it is possible that it could be a constructive article. No worries if you don't want to help. Jhenderson 777 19:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one. Can you maybe review and critique The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) (and maybe help edit) for preparation for FA nomination. So I can put my time more so for the sequel and other film articles. Jhenderson 777 20:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
@Jhenderson777: Hello, I haven't forgotten this. That article definitely has a lot of detail! It seems like the article will mainly need copy-editing. Have you tried to read the article to yourself? For example, the lead section does not state that Andrew Garfield plays Peter Parker. It may also be worth redefining the "Spider-Man film series" to say it was a film trilogy that went from 2002 to 2007 (especially to put it in historical context). Also try to think about what details are important for the lead section. For example, announcing the release date is not worth mentioning if it was hardly changed from that point on. There's a lot more that I could say. Some random observations include casting detail being too specific to the date, box office figures that could be rounded, and that the references need works/publishers consistently filled in. For the last one, I suggest having the website name go into the work. If the website is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, I suggest filling out the publisher as well. For example, the work could be Superhero Hype published by Crave Online Media. There's a lot more I could say, but I admit I have a hard time differentiating the "right" feedback and feedback based on my own style. Let me know if you have any questions. We can go through the article section by section. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "For example, the lead section does not state that Andrew Garfield plays Peter Parker." Done
  • "It may also be worth redefining the "Spider-Man film series" to say it was a film trilogy that went from 2002 to 2007 (especially to put it in historical context)."  Done
  • "Also try to think about what details are important for the lead section. For example, announcing the release date is not worth mentioning if it was hardly changed from that point on." Done
  • "There's a lot more that I could say."

Please do tell. Jhenderson 777 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Some random observations include casting detail being too specific to the date, box office figures that could be rounded, and that the references need works/publishers consistently filled in. For the last one, I suggest having the website name go into the work. If the website is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, I suggest filling out the publisher as well. For example, the work could be Superhero Hype published by Crave Online Media. There's a lot more I could say, but I admit I have a hard time differentiating the "right" feedback and feedback based on my own style. Let me know if you have any questions." We can go through the article section by section."

I did do all the lead edits you mentioned and I want you to proofread it now if you want. I am fairly certain I need to fix citations. I am definitely ready for that. Just point me to that uncomplete citation. That's a easier part for me. The main thing I would be worried on is that there might be dead links though. I haven't archived every url yet. Good idea to start sections by sections. You can worry about the citation on that particular section if that's ok? My only question now is the lead more to your liking. I am also curious about those "random obversations" of casting detail and the box office figures be rounded. Jhenderson 777 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Future films and Terminator: Genesis

Hi. I followed your advice about taking the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Future_films and I found a previous discussion on the subject. Can you please follow up here and confirm whether things are the way I see them? Thanks! --uKER (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@UKER: I responded. Also, check out Shantaram (film), which I put together before 2013 came around. Before 2013, the first two paragraphs only existed, and as you can see, the film-in-development had a director, writer, and a star. Nothing happened for 3 years, and it looks like there is some activity this year. That kind of uncertainty is why I don't think it's always proper to have stand-alone articles. Unfortunately, with franchise films, I think we get caught up in that exciting news and assume the best (as opposed to the worst). To cite another example, there were a lot of headlines when the Justice League film was being developed, but now, with no film ever coming about, there's no real work of fiction to write about. That means that the development history is better suited as a footnote since it led nowhere, as opposed to an actual film where its past development activity is very relevant. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I think more than whether it reached principal photography or not, the key is the amount of information available on the subject. If it fits a footnote, I say it doesn't need an article, but the Terminator: Genesis article I'd say has grown big enough to live on its own. --uKER (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Transcendence

Sorry about adding the "Academy Award" and "received praise" parts, didn't realize that wasn't supposed to be there. Why take out that Paul Bettany, Kate Mara, and Cillian Murphy are also staring? They are all well-known actors that should be included on the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.127.167 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Dredd

Hi Erik, not sure if I properly pinged you. If you have a moment can you continue your feedback or make further suggestions at the above? I have 3 supports so far. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: I've seen your notifications, but I have to admit that I am hard-pressed to support the article as Featured. While the article meets the FA criteria of being comprehensive and well-researched, I am not finding its prose of a professional standard. My FAC comments touched on this, such as the last paragraph in the "Cast" section being a run-on or the "Development" section having out-of-place details like those about the film's distribution. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I changed the cast section a little. I disagree with your issues on the Development section much the same way I disagree with the listing of crew, but that has nothing to do with the prose of the Development section. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 23:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: What I mean to say about the "Development" section is that it has indiscriminate detail, particularly when it comes to dates. It reads like something that grew piecemeal and was not revisited to present in retrospect. The first sentence is not well-written. The October 2009 mention of lacking a director is indiscriminate, especially when it's not mentioned when the director came on board. An item like the title being announced in September 2010 is also indiscriminate, especially if there was no fuss (as far as I can tell) about its possible titling. I'm not sure why you disagree about the distribution detail; Lionsgate's deal was not very relevant to the actual production, which is why it is better placed in the "Release" section. I just find that the section is being treated as a place to put events that happened before filming began. The rest of the article reads a little better, but I'm still seeing excessive use of colons and inconsistent placement of quotation marks. Where a fragment is quoted, the last quotation mark is sometimes inside the punctuation and sometimes outside it. Ultimately, I think the article could use copy-editing. It's definitely a challenge to weave together various details, but I think that means shuffling content after everything is settled. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I read the article you linked, the quotation marks are placed as it says, quoted or not. The Development section is a series of developments, I'm not sure what is offensive about that. The information to flesh it out does not exist. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There, I made more changes. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
C'mon Erik, I've made the changes to the Development you asked for. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt! Happy holidays to you too! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Domestic violence in film

Hi Erik, I really appreciate your contribution. Please find below my comments.

re: Wikipedia needs to be based on secondary sources. This means that if we list items, we need to reference each one with an inline citation. I do agree on the concept of citation: 'It is essential to the quality and integrity of Wikipedia that all articles be based on information collected from verifiable sources.'[5]

But when I wrote than at the minute 90 "Deliver us from Eva" Eva Kicks her boyfriend because he was paid to date her it respect both of criteria defined below:

However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and

(2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary source Regarding the movie "Chicago" there is a secondary sources that is linked in the original page

In this case a primary source should be accepted. Re:Do you want to focus on just making a list, or to have a body of text, or both combined? I would prefer to prepare a list but I can refer mainly to primary sources (I am looking TV and I am taking notes when I find something interesting)

I think that the table in the page "Domestic violence in film" should contain a column that defines who is the victim of domestic violence (male/female) and who is the perpetrator. I edited the page because the plot of "Break up" was a bit different — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenderMovie (talk • contribs)

Secondary sources are important because even this topic can be subject to interpretation. For example, one of your previous examples was The Bourne Supremacy in which a male spy commits violence toward a female spy. Do you really think that this is an example of domestic violence as it is defined? By using secondary sources, we avoid original research. Wikipedia reports what others conclude; we do not determine categorizations ourselves. For example, this is a pretty big list of films that could belong in the Wikipedia article. Because a reliable source identified these films as such, we can then include them and reference that source. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
GenderMovie, we cannot use Wikipedia articles as references per WP:CIRCULAR. I assume you are trying to refer to that Wikipedia article since it mentions in the story that the wives killed their husbands. However, doing a search engine test, I am not finding any secondary sources calling that domestic violence. It can be identified that way by us, but it has not been highlighted by others like that. Basically, we cannot do the highlighting ourselves; we need to determine the meaningfulness of a film entry based on a source other than our own analysis. I would recommend Googling for films that have domestic violence and finding reliable sources that identify some. They should usually be newspapers or magazines publishing online content, and we can reference them. You could also look for similar results in Google Books. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I found difficult to understand why there is not any secondary source/citation in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_(2002_film) but this is required for the page "Domestic violence in film". The events that I am reporting from the movies are not questionable. May you please clarify it?

Thanks,

Enrico — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenderMovie (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Enrico, from what I can tell, what you are trying to highlight is not actually domestic violence. If you read the Wikipedia article for that, the events in the film don't match that. The husbands cheating and the wives committing murder aren't specifically acts of domestic violence. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Eric,
the killing of the husband is an act of domestic violence as defined by the wikipedia article:
Domestic violence, ...is a pattern of behavior which involves the abuse by one partner against another in an intimate relationship .... Domestic violence can take many forms, including physical aggression ... stalking;
I agree with you on the issue of primary/secondary sources but my impression is that this was negletted by the research but it respect the criteria defined by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
It is an intepretation to insert the movie "Chicago" in the page domestic violence but it is not to insert it in the page page in
"Movies where a person is killed by its partner " — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenderMovie (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, if this was a list about spouse killing, that would be distinct from domestic violence. I think this instance shows how it can be subject to interpretation, so to avoid disputes, secondary sources (like the link above) should be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

List of films featuring domestic violence

Eric, I'm sorry, I moved it to List of films featuring domestic violence before reading your edit summary that you may be planning to make this less list-y and more prose-based. Hope I haven't caused any inconvenience. More helpfully, I did add some cats. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Shawn, not a problem. I was just starting out with a list approach since I thought it would be easier to guide the editor who created that article. This may be better in the long run though. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Batman Arkham Origins Gameplay.ogv

I know you are mostly involved with film-related articles...but I would love to hear your opinion on this image on the deletion on this or not before a can of worms start opening up. Jhenderson 777 01:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Italics

Totally, and I'm glad to see another editor willing to pitch in and help work out some of the unavoidable ambiguity that Wikipedia often runs into (since the 'net is so wide no one-size-fits-all rule applies). Certainly, we cite "The New York Times" rather than "NYTimes.com," and similarly with other physical-world periodicals with a presence on the Web. And while I might not agree, I can certainly go along with italicizing Web-only sites ID'ing themselves as an online magazine, such as Salon — and even here, I'd bow to what seems like TheWrap.com's and Deadline.com's preference to not italicize themselves and to use "dotcom" in their names. We're definitely in agreement there's room for interpretation, so what do you think? We bring this to one of the MOS talk pages and invite other editors? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm flexible. I wouldn't have thought the Film Project since this was a videogame. And discussing it just at the Videogame Project (I'm assuming there's one) seems kind of limited. There's so much ambiguity in this particular MOS, I'm certainly willing to give a top-level discussion a shot — anything that can get resolved will make it easier on future editors. I do remember a long and contentious on whether the page for the celebrity-news site should be TMZ, TMZ.com or TMZ (website) — and thank goodness we didn't get into italics there on top of that!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, ComingSoon.net mostly just lists aggregated release data; I've rarely seen any original reporting on it since most of its news items are either lifted (with attribution) from somewhere else, or are just press releases, rewritten press releases, or postings of studio material, such as stills and trailers.
As much time and trouble as it might be — and I think it'll be less so for us two once other editors start weighing in — going to the MOS would help clear up the inherent ambiguities in what's there now. For example, it says news sites with original content generally should be italicized. Yet TMZ is a news site that runs original content, and no mainstream publication italicizes it. Neither does TMZ itself — which goes to the larger point: If mainstream newspapers and magazines generally don't italicize dotcom names, having an encyclopedia go against the grain and create a new style rather than reflect established style used everywhere else seems to go against our mission.
So this seems a good opportunity to help make a better encyclopedia by making a clearer MOS. If you want, I can go to the talk page for MOS:ITALICS and just put up some feelers and see what kind of response they get. Maybe you could go in as well and help seed the discussion? Honest-to-God, you've brought up something that in terms of global Wikipedia style and consistency seems to me to be really important — consistency being one of the keys to clear communication. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, my. I see there's already ben a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting since May on this topic. We should probably read that and get up-to-speed on the extant issues before doing anything. Oy. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Yeah, we definitely want a consistent cite style throughout each article and, optimally, someday. throughout Wikipedia. Let me slog through that discussion and see if I can ground myself better, then I'll meet you back here later. Crunch time at work right now.... --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Erik. Well, I've read through the discussion, and there doesn't seem to be any definite in there. The one thing that seem consistent is that both the Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook, the two major style guides used by magazines and newspapers, tend to italicized books and magazines and Romanize (use non-italics) for website names
We're not beholden to that, obviously, but we want Wikipedia to reflect the real world. I remember the endless discussion at Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness for weeks or even months over, I kid you not, whether to capitalize the "i" in Into. Wikipedia style was that we would not, but the film's creators, the studio and virtually every magazine and newspaper capitalized it. The final consensus was that an encyclopedia wouldn't be fulfilling its job of cataloguing reality if it insisted on an arbitrary style that virtually no one else used. So, I dunno — want to go to the Batman: Arkham Origins article and look at particular citations one by one? Anything the two of us can't hash out together, I'm sure we could get other editors to weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I took a look at your contributions history to see if you were around today, and I have to say that in addition to the thoughtfulness and civility you've shown in our discussions that you also seem like an exemplary, careful editor who really understands Wikipedia. It is always such a pleasure to meet and work with editor such as that. You do nice work.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Erik. I have to say, I find Comingsoon.net basically an aggregator rather than a news site doing original reporting The top five stories today, for instance, are a Summit press release (with a short introductory paragraph), three postings of stills / trailers (what we call, seriously and not derisively, "studio handouts"), and one re-report of something attributed to Entertainment Weekly, which is the original source that would be cited in a footnote. While the one Comingsoon.net cite at Batman: Arkham Origins is an original item, it's not a news story — it's a review, which anyone can do. The vast bulk of Comingsoon.net isn't original reporting, so it would seem more like a news aggregator as opposed to a news-gathering organization in the normal sense.
I actually don't even see it italicized at its parent company Crave Online's own About page. And I'm not finding it italicized at its few mainstream-newspaper mentions, such as this one at The New York Times. What's your take on this? Are you finding it generally italicized or not italicized on the Web? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It's been almost a week, and I figure I'll wait a couple of days more because we're all busy with the holidays and then if there's no objection I'll Romanize Comingsoon.net so that it matches elsewhere in Wikipedia and sources like the above. With best wishes for a productive and prosperous New Year, Tenebrae (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


Tenebrae (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year, Erik

Jhenderson 777 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Jhenderson 777 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: Happy New Year to you too! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings


TriiipleThreat (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Merry Christmas to you too, and Happy New Year as well! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/video-walking-with-dinosaurs--building-a-dinosaur-featurette-9003510.html
  2. ^ http://youtu.be/af_1zThnR0U
  3. ^ http://www.traveladventurecinema.com/blog/Walking-with-Dinosaurs/
  4. ^ http://www.soya.com.au/mentor/marco-marenghi/
  5. ^ http://letsstartwiththisone.blogspot.com/2013/11/new-interview-and-featurette-with.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik/Archive_27&oldid=1091611351"