Jump to content

User talk:Erik/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 34

Update on The FP

Not entirely sure you'll remember this little article I was working on, but it grew. I've just nominated it for FA status, and I'm actually very excited. Working on this article has made me realize that, if I'm dedicated enough, I could probably help a lot of my favourite films get to at least GA, and that's something I never thought I'd manage before. I just wanted to thank you for all of your help, both directly on this article early on and in general in all of our collaboration since. You've been a fantastic unofficial mentor, and I'd be happy to help you with any articles or projects you're working on. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's awesome! I've seen your edits on the article as time goes by, and it's really neat to see how much you've pulled together. Think of it this way, that article is the best place anywhere to read about the film. That's why I like working on film on Wikipedia. :) If you want to collaborate, let me know what films you have in mind, and maybe where our favorites overlap, we can work on that film together. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much! It's been a labour of love, that's for sure. I love that movie more than I probably should.
As for what's in mind, good question. I'd like to get District 9 to a better place, at least GA if not FA. I think the information is more than plentiful, so it wouldn't be too terribly hard. I was going to move to getting Children of Men up to FA after the FP review closes. I'd also like to get some Tarantino films up, since I think Reservoir Dogs and Inglourious Basterds are his only GA films. Lastly, I was gonna work on Warrior, a bit of a sleeper that is a top ten for me, and John Dies at the End, a little-known film based on a little-known book that is also a favourite. I'm sure I'm forgetting some, and that we'll overlap if you have more films in mind. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Warrior was a pleasant surprise to watch. The MMA premise didn't hook me, but since it got pretty good reviews, I checked it out and loved it. I have John Dies at the End on my Netflix instant queue to watch. District 9 definitely needs some love; I worked on it a bit when it first came out, but never really shaped it up. If you want to achieve FA status, I think this film has quite a bit of academic commentary as seen here. Children of Men, phew, I worked a little on that as well. I'm not crazy about the "Themes" section there because it uses a lot of contemporary news-style references. If you do want to do an FA push, I can access most of the related books and get pictures of pages. I did that for the editor who put together American Beauty'. Anyway, I am going to go enjoy the day today. Later! :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Corvoe: What do you say? Do you want to collaborate on Children of Men? :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I apologize, I completely missed that reply. I would definitely be up for Children of Men work. I might not be able to work on it much since I'll be focusing on The FP until it's either at FA or it gets declined :P I definitely want to get Children of Men up though. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, of course! I meant after The FP. Watching any World Cup this weekend? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Nah, not big on soccer. I've heard it should be interesting, though. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Corvoe, if you need additional feedback, you could ask the primary editor for The Whistleblower (see stalled FAC) to review your FAC and say that you can review their article when it is renominated. (I plan to review it myself; I had previously read it but did not make any comments). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I just gave it a read-through and it seems like a very strong candidate for FA. How do they gauge when to promote though? That article had two supports, is there a cut off? Corvoe (speak to me) 20:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the coordinators sought for more editors to support it, which was why it was considered "stalled". Part of the reason for my suggestion above. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Corvoe, I haven't forgotten the FAC! Hoping to review the copy-editing changes tomorrow to confirm my support. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No sweat, man! 1ST7 just got internet access back, so you two are the only ones left to re-review. I'm in no rush. I'm anxious and excited, but no rush. That's why I haven't bugged you, haha. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The topic of this film meets the basic notability standards but has not begun filming. As it is pushing at WP:NFF (paragraph 3), our policy tells us it can be spoken some place. I think the director's article is the best place. What say? Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You / Query

I thank you again for your response to me on The Two Faces of January for changing it from "American" to "English-language. I have in the past tried to change pages with similar issues. I came in to trouble with an editor called Flyer22 (talk) who from what I could see for no god reason came to an instant dislike against me on Avatar (2009 film), a co-production labeled "American", even though I used a reference to a policy before leaving a polite message on his talk page. I have promised not to continue in the matter as I am not liked and will just make the matter worse. I would like to ask if you could please look in to the matter if you have time as you are arguably one of the best film editors on Wikipedia. Thank You for your time. WARNER one (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the film article's talk page archives, the discussion that locked in the current label is here. However, that was in 2010, so you can start a new discussion and provide evidence, such as what countries AFI and BFI identify for the film. This is also an interesting read that could be mentioned. I'm not keen to start discussions about this sort of thing, but I'd be happy to participate once the discussion starts. Do be aware of edit warring; if you are reverted with a claim of consensus, then seek out the details of that and see if the consensus is worth revisiting. If you go back and forth too much, it creates a battleground mentality, and it's harder to have an amicable conversation with the other editor(s). I also hope that you can add content to some film articles; I don't think it is a good idea to have a narrow editing mission. It helps to vary your goals so it is easier to switch to something less contentious. It's just a website at the end of the day, after all. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
WARNER one, the reasons for my troubles with you are made explicitly clear on my talk page; I stand by all of what I stated there. And you did not cite a policy; I did. You cited a guideline, and it did not trump what I explained to you. And as previous talk page discussion at the Avatar (2009 film) article shows, Erik was also one of the editors for categorizing the Avatar film as American. But like Erik stated above, that was years ago. He might have a different opinion on the matter now. And in the future, if you don't want me to weigh in when you mention me, then don't link my username (per WP:Echo).
Erik, seeing as there is already a current discussion on that talk page about the aforementioned Avatar film matter, I don't see a need to start a new discussion there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Flyer22: Ah-ha, I didn't see that discussion. I was looking toward the end since I thought a new discussion would be there. I see now that the new discussion is piggybacking on an October 2013 discussion. I'll weigh in there a little later. What do you think of the book passage that I linked to above? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That book will help sort out matters. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Corvoe has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you. That actually made me feel a bit more at ease, believe it or not. I'm sure, if you look at my contributions, you'll notice I'm not exactly acting in character. A cookie might be exactly what I need, haha.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Exodus: Gods and Kings

The trailer for this film was just released and I've noticed a number of articles discussing the ethnicity of the cast. This article actually links to the Wikipedia article: Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I was wondering if it was mentioning in the article. There is a similar discussion at The_Last_Airbender#Casting_controversy. Thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, the ethnicity issue is exactly why I started following the article. (Joel Edgerton and Aaron Paul as Egyptians -- really!?) There's definitely some interesting coverage to come. I don't think the Screen Rant article is quite substantial; it is foreseeing the issue like we are. I think we can wait for something more in-depth to include in the Wikipedia article, which may happen soon with the trailer now circulating. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Just found this! Maybe we can state something after all. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I just mentioned the Screen Rant article because it mentions one of our own articles. But there are few more that comment on it as well including; The Wire, Slate, and Vanity Fair. But the article appears to need some general expansion first so that the controversy isn't given WP:UNDUE weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration time?

All right, so I think we're down to a waiting game for The FP; I really can't find any more changes to make. So, while I know we said we were going to work on Children of Men, I personally think we should focus our efforts on getting Edge of Tomorrow up to GA. I know I said I would work on that Reception section, and I actually will. I'm planning to after dinner today, which will be around 23:00 UTC so feel free to get on me if I haven't started by then. The one for Neighbors isn't going anywhere, and that article isn't nearly as close to GA as Edge of Tomorrow is, so it can wait. Anyhoo, after we get Edge up to GA, I think we should then go for Children of Men up to FA, and then see what else we can improve. We're like the Dynamic Duo, except both of us are Batman. What do you think? Corvoe (speak to me) 22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it would be great to wrap up on Edge of Tomorrow. I've seen a few more headlines, like this about the film opening at #2 in Japan. There are also a few headlines that talk about the ending, so it may be worth including commentary about that in some fashion. I haven't really edited too much the past week or so; still recovering from the holiday weekend. I started a "References to use" section at Talk:Children of Men but it may be too ambitious to seek these out for FA status. :-P Look forward to it, fellow Batman! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It's worth a shot. I usually don't look into books for research, but this is a rare instance where I really want to (I passionately love this film). And yeah, I think Edge is very close. I'll look for those headlines. Corvoe (speak to me) 22:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I swear I'm going to have time to work on things eventually, I just haven't (outside of down time at work) for several days. Once I do though, I'm going to work on the reception section and try to extract information from those references you supplied. Once I know I'll be adding them soon, I'm going to put in a request with GOCE to give the article a run-through, then I think we can safely nominate it for GA. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries! :) I'm not going anywhere. I get that life can get busy. I'm having a busy week myself, hence my sporadic edits. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Good to hear it. Not the busy week part necessarily, the first part. I'm thinking I'll have some time on Friday to really buckle down and work. If not, I guess the article isn't going anywhere either. No real rush. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, so I finally have some free time (family was down this weekend), so I'm wondering; apart from a VFX section (which I've started working on in a .txt document) and a copy-edit pass through, what are we thinking we need to get Edge up to GA? Corvoe (be heard) 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe: Hope it was a nicely busy weekend! A section about visual effects sounds good. I am wondering how we can mention the ending coverage. A lot of sources referred to the Film School Rejects piece, so I think we should include the details of that in the article body. I would say we need a more spruced-up "Critical response" section (like I mentioned before, maybe replacing Variety and The Hollywood Reporter with other sources). We also need to expand the lead section to be an accurate summary of the article body once we make these changes. I was busy this past weekend too (really, the past two weeks) but this weekend looks fairly open. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, totally forgot I still haven't done the critical response section. The lead should definitely mention the reception, in addition to the gender roles and video game comparisons. As for the alternate ending information, I think we could put that with the information about filming without an ending, towards the end of the sub-headerless "Production" section.
Good to hear you'll be free as well! I'm hoping to wrap up the first go at a VFX section tonight, and start on the critical response area either tonight or tomorrow. We're getting close, I think. Corvoe (be heard) 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Was that "Thanks" for moving you out of the lead? Haha. Corvoe (be heard) 13:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it was for the nice description of me. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's accurate :P I've vastly improved as an editor over the last few months/year, I think, and a lot of it is due to your help. You're one of few people that I can ask an immensive of questions and not feel annoying, haha. Corvoe (be heard) 14:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of film accents considered the worst for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of film accents considered the worst 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/List of film accents considered the worst (2nd nomination) 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. Any opinion? Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt, I already commented. :) In the previous AfD discussion, I advocated to keep but changed to delete. In the current discussion, I think "worst" accents are best placed in context of general coverage about accents in film. I think that the criteria is too subjective (in terms of non-expert opinion) to have a bona fide list of accents. Like I said in my comment, I think it would be more appropriate to make disparaged accents only part of the detail of a general section about the given accent. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the suggested article name-change and a re-focus would be of benefit, and could encourage proper expansion. I think a delete is a dis-service to all the many, many sources that have covered the topic of bad movie accents. I have heard so many folks reasonably declare a topic non-notable when WP:GNG is failed, but to hear that the GNG may be ignored is a bit of a surprise. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Second weekend

Hello Erik; I see that you improved the Second weekend in box office performance article, but why put links to it into several other movie articles in their See also section, i.e. [1]? It seems that any movie will have a second weekend, so why do those particular articles need a link to that article? Prhartcom (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Hello, I added them because they are uniquely listed in that article for having significant second-weekend drops or increases. (I linked to the relevant section, depending on the film and list.) Is that too much? I tend to advocate cross-navigation so readers can jump from article to article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You are probably more of a movie article expert than me, but yes, from an objective viewpoint, it does seem an odd entry to those article's See also section. Remember to keep personal bias in check (naturally you want to promote something you personally have been working on). I can certainly side with the benefits of cross-navigation, especially if it makes perfect sense and is helpful to the reader. How about moving the links to each article's body section, in the exact place where the second weekend is mentioned? And if it isn't mentioned, than it doesn't belong? That would certainly be a stronger case for inclusion in those articles (pretend that using the See also section is cheating!). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Carniolus is beating me to it! I didn't realize the content is already in some article bodies; I assumed that they lacked that detail. (I'm usually the one reporting on second-weekend performances...) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Nice work on the Second weekend article. (Perhaps it needs a footnote to a cited reference after the first and/or second sentences of the main Second weekend drop section; otherwise it seems cited well throughout.) Prhartcom (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Is this what you mean? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I see what you did there, sure, that's fine, as long as you believe you are citing all your sources. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Please stop removing the "See also" sections; they are not detrimental to have in the first place. It is an improvement to put the link into the article body, yes, but taking it out entirely is going backwards. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I have already asked you to consider not promoting the article you improved on seemingly random movie articles. Don't take it personally, just work a little harder to place the link to the article you improved in articles that actually mention second weekend business (or research and add the mention yourself). For example, "The film grossed $x million in its second weekend." Let me know if you have a follow up comment or question. Prhartcom (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: The articles where I added the link were for the films mentioned in second weekend in box office performance as exceptional for having the biggest second weekend drops or the biggest second weekend decreases. They are not random additions; did you not see the films mentioned in the article's tables? I was adding "See also" sections per WP:SEEALSO, which permits links to explore tangentially related topics, especially in articles that are not fully expanded. Ideally, these articles should have fleshed-out box office sections with room for linking, but that is not always the case. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Erik, any article that you believe needs a link to the newly expanded Second weekend article should link from that article's prose, for example, please see the way I just added the link to Night at the Museum. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts in a See also section, the facts should be presented in prose with context and with explanation. The Second weekend article may have importance to you, but you must admit that for everyone else, after we see its link in those article's See also section, its relevance is not immediately apparent, which is stated as a no-no at WP:ALSO. It needs context. I'm asking you to work a little harder to build Wikipedia by writing a sentence in each of the articles you believe need this link, as you say, fleshed-out box office sections with room for linking, and link from the sentence, not from the See also section. I'm also asking you to put the needs of the readers above your need to promote the newly expanded article. Let me know if you don't get the idea yet. Again, thanks for working on the Second weekend article (P.S. I see we do not have a First weekend article, only a First weekend list!) (P.S.S. I created a redirect article "Second weekend" which links to the longer named Second weekend article.) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to waste my time adding box office sections to articles about films I do not care about. I do agree that the relevance may not be immediately apparent, so I will append a brief annotation per the guidelines. I will add the link in the article body where there is room, but if there is not, I will add a "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. I have incorporated the link into the majority of the articles per your concerns. I have also added annotations to the "See also" sections where the articles had negligible content. It is not worth my time to write content for a film like The Brothers Solomon. And if you see a way to add it, or want to add it, do it yourself. I've done the lion's share of the incorporating already. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Erik, I was hoping you would understand what is best for Wikipedia. It's not about you. Disappointing. I'll take a look and see what I can do as you suggest. Prhartcom (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It is not about you, either, so you should not work backwards to make a point. Incorporate a link as an example to follow instead of doing a dozen reverts. (Carniolus did this very well.) Not every article will be developed, and not all links (especially list ones) will fit, so a "See also" section can be appropriate. Like I said, I added annotations to the handful of sections I restored due to the lack of content. There is nothing inherently damaging about such sections, and edits should flow one direction, from nothing to a tangentially relevant link to a link embedded in solid content. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Researcher's Barnstar

Researcher's Barnstar
I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Researcher's Barnstar in appreciation for your superb work in creating Draft:English-language accents in film as a decent solution to the perceived problems with List of film accents considered the worst. Excellent work! Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

note:

@Erik: A few sources for expansion on "American accents" section... pro and con: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and you might also have a section on non-Anglo actors who have used American accents: [13] Cheers, Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been busy lately so I have not had a chance to get back to it. Definitely had in mind to cover American accents -- have read a lot about British actors taking these up to be involved in Hollywood productions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@MichaelQSchmidt: Looks like the article is a goner. I'd like to beef up the draft article tomorrow so we can go ahead and move it into the mainspace. If you can, bug me about it! :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well... none of the deletes votes were opposed to a redirect. I will bug you when I return home this afternoon. Gotta go to work. ;) Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Maze Runner (film)#Critical response

I just find out two questionable sources on Critical response section below: Schmoes Know and Matt's Movie Reviews. Can remove them? 183.171.170.70 (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I reviewed the sources and agree with you. I've removed them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia as a White savior narrative

Given that White savior narrative in film provides a source for Lawrence of Arabia, would it not be better to add an appropriate statement to the article utilizing the appropriate source, rather than implying that the film is such a narrative without providing a source? DonIago (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't mean to rile you, if I did. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry to be curt. Just felt like it was a repeat of the situation seen above, and I'm not feeling great this morning. I apologize. :( Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you're not feeling great. :( I generally (though admittedly not always) think you're right on in your decisions. FWIW I considered raising this at the article's Talk page, but felt contacting you directly would be the more diplomatic (and perhaps expeditious) option. My feelings about See also links that make implications such as this is that it's probably best practice to handle them in the same way that categorizations would be handled, but I don't know that there's any consensus or guideline/policy on the matter. Based on the above situation, which I can see somewhat mirrors mine, maybe it would be best to discuss at an appropriate Talk page? Feel free to link me, or not, if such a discussion occurs, though I guess I've made it clear that our opinions may not align. Anyway, I wasn't looking to make you feel pressured to shoehorn in anything you wouldn't be comfortable adding; a discussion here or elsewhere would have been fine with me. Anyway, sorry if I inadvertently kicked you while you were down. Again, I have the utmost respect for your contributions to the project and hope you feel better shortly. Welcome to talk further about this or anything else if you'd like, or just let it drop if that's what you'd most like as an outcome. Cheers man. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I don't know of any discussions more in-depth than the wording at WP:SEEALSO, which basically says the sections are to "explore tangentially related topics". My impression of how they are used (besides my list-related proliferating) is that they are not necessarily reference-bound. For example, Edge of Tomorrow (film) has in its "See also" section a link to The Defence of Duffer's Drift. I don't think the film has been compared to that century-old book, but the premises are obviously similar. So is there a problem of original research? WP:SEEALSO does say such a link "do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article", so it can come down to so-called "editorial judgment and common sense", which I interpret to mean local consensus, since each case is probably unique. In this particular case, a reference is a click away (embedded in the list article). I've sometimes referenced items in the "See also" section, but it has been to identify a set of topics, like at Apt Pupil (film)#See also. (In contrast, categories are ultimately dependent on their home article bodies because there's nowhere else to have individual references, unlike lists and their connective see-also sections.) I am probably biased toward ease in not wanting to try to make a link fit especially if there is not much to the article. WP:SEEALSO does encourage brief annotations where the connection is unclear, but I kind of feel that the connection is implied -- if it is linking to a set of links, it is likely part of that set's criteria. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I think my feeling boils down to "barring jargon, which can hopefully be linked, everything a reader should need to understand an article and verify its content should be present at that article". Personally I favor annotations in See also sections if the linkage isn't obvious or the linked item isn't "likely" to be well-known. For the "Edge of Tomorrow" See also I'd appreciate an annotation, since I've never heard of TDoDD and don't necessarily want to have to read the article to figure out the connection on my own.
Anyway, I'm a bit scatter-brained right now, but hopefully that helps to make my position clear. DonIago (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that ideally a film article should not have a "See also" section, with all links incorporated in the article body? If so, I don't think that can be axiomatic. It is going to depend on the topic. For example, the Featured Article intelligent design (which has definitely been heavily reviewed) has a pretty extensive "See also" section. I do agree that "See also" links should be imported into the article body whenever possible, but there may be some links (especially of the list sort) that do not fit naturally. Not to mention that WP:SEEALSO states that links "do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article". I think it is more likely for concept-related links to be easily incorporated where group-related links may not be. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm definitely not saying that. :) To my mind the whole point of SA sections is to include links to things that don't fit neatly into the narrative of the article. But, for instance, by listing "White Savior films" under the SA for LoA, one is implicitly stating that LoA is itself one such film (otherwise, why include the link?). However, if the article itself has no such assertion, then to my mind it's inappropriate for the same reason that it would be inappropriate to include "White Savior films" as a category for the article, if such a cat existed (and for all I know, it does). I don't think it's such a stretch to include a list of similarly-themed films/media/etc., but I think ideally the reason why the list item is being included should be spelled out via annotation...readers shouldn't have to guess what the rationale is, to my mind. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

American Beauty

I have raised a concern about a recent review added to American Beauty (1999 film). Since you are a frequent editor perhaps you could give your opinion at Talk:American_Beauty_(1999_film)#Nostalgia_Critic. The format of the review in question is quite unusual which is why I would like to see what other people make of it (i.e. a comedian satirizing film criticism giving an unusually serious review under the guise of his comic creation). Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to weigh in! :) I was researching Koonter's edits first. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Djinn

Does anybody know when the film Djinn will be released in the United States?--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I don't know. I looked before, and I just looked again and do not see anything new. IMDb says it had a limited release on October 30, 2013, but I cannot verify that anywhere else. There's no box office information for it. It may be in distribution hell (akin to development hell). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Well that's stupid!! I wonder when it will finally be released. I guess We'll have to wait and see.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Quarterly Review of Film and Video Wikipedia Page

Hi - Wheeler Winston Dixon here.

Michael Q. Schmidt suggested I get in touch with you as a person who specializes in film matters for Wikipedia.

It's about the Wikipedia page for QRFV, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterly_Review_of_Film_and_Video

To be precise, he said "you might also reach out to User:Erik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erik. He has been around longer than I and has knowledge I may not. As there is no specific guideline criteria for academic journals, falling back on ONLY the WP:GNG is a lazy way to remove a topic. Since it is something used in academia and is available in hardcopy, WP:TEXTBOOKS is the one that fits... and IT does not require a meeting of WP:GNG because of the nature of the subject, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_and_technical_books ..."

The journal I edit, QUARTERLY REVIEW OF FILM AND VIDEO, is having a hot and heavy discussion as to possible deletion and notability on its Wikipedia page. Schmidt, Randykitty, you and others argue to keep the page; others not. As I pointed out to Michael, though print runs are minimal in the digital era, 1,724 libraries subscribed to QRFV online in 2012, and full text downloads of journal articles in 2012 were 45,118 on a worldwide basis. QRFV's 2012 subscription totals spanned 7 global regions in 37 countries. QRFV has been published since 1976 by Taylor and Francis, an imprint of Routledge, and edited by myself and Gwendolyn Audrey Foster since 1999, and in that time we have published literally thousands of articles on a quarterly basis by some of the top scholars in the field -- if you look in the page's history, you can see their names, which have been blanked out by the most recent edit. Our editorial board is also filled with the top names in academic film criticism.

Quarterly Review of Film & Video is Abstracted/Indexed with the following services: • Chadwyck‐Healey: FIAF International Index to Film Periodicals; PIO ‐ Periodicals Index Online • CSA: Communication Abstracts Online • EBSCOhost: Academic Search Alumni Edition; Academic Search Complete; Academic Search Elite; Academic Search Premier; Art & Architecture Complete; Art & Architecture Index; Art Source; Communication & Mass Media Complete; Communication Abstracts Online; Current Abstracts; Film & Television Literature Index; Film & Television Literature Index with Full Text; Humanities International Complete; Humanities International Index; Humanities Source; Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies; TOC Premier • Elsevier BV: Scopus • H.W. Wilson: Art Abstracts; Art Full Text; Art Index; Biography Index; Book Review Digest Plus; Humanities & Social Sciences Index Retrospective; Humanities Abstracts; Humanities Full Text; Humanities Index (Online); Humanities Index Retrospective; Omnifile Full Text Mega • OCLC: ArticleFirst; Electronic Collections Online; Humanities Index (Online); Periodical Abstracts • Ovid: FIAF Databases • ProQuest: Arts Module; Professional ProQuest Central; ProQuest 5000; ProQuest 5000 International; ProQuest Central; ProQuest Research Library • Modern Library Association: MLA International Bibliography • Thomson Reuters: Arts and Humanities Search

In 2012, QRFV was featured at the following conferences:

Modern Language Association January Joint Annual Conference of the MeCCSA and AMPE January Western States Communication Association Southwestern PCA/ACA‐Popular Studies Association/American Culture Association AEJMC Midwinter Meeting Conference on Literature and Film Society for Cinema and Media Studies 4 Cs – NCTE – Conference for College Composition and Communication Northeast Modern Language Association Southern States Communication Association Media History and History in the Media Central States Communication Association New Jersey Communication Association College Art Association Eastern Communication Association PCA/ACA Annual Meeting Broadcast Education Association RTNDA‐Radio‐Television News Directors Association International Communication Association Rhetoric Society of America Summer Institute International Visual Sociology Association International Association for Media and Communication Research University Film & Video Conference American Sociological Association Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Midwest Popular Culture Association Northeast Popular Culture Association National Communication Association American Society for the History of Rhetoric European Communication Research Conference

As Michael explained to me, "the easiest (laziest) way by which editors determine Wikipedia-type notability is through use of WP:GNG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

What does address academic journals is WP:NJournals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals)

but this is an essay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_value_of_essays

and while is has applicability it does not have the same weight in discussions as do guidelines or policies."

You know all this, I certainly don't. I don't contribute to Wikipedia -- just too complex. However, I ask that you intervene and bring this discussion to a conclusion at the very least, so that the "not notable" tag goes away, and the article isn't deleted. I should also point out that our tenure as editors expires on December 31, 2014, when the journal will be edited by David Sterritt, but I just don't think this is fair to the journal.

Michael pointed out to me that "the closing of an AFD is described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed -- is there some way we can bring some additional people in here, get a consensus, and get this solved.

Having said that, I'm bowing out. I leave it to you to do what you see fit, but I would like to see this matter resolved -- I'll just look on the page in a few days and see what's happened.

With all best wishes, and thanks for your time,

Wheeler Winston Dixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.161.55 (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am undecided about the topic's notability since I am more familiar with films than academic journals, including those about films. :) First, I just want to say that it is not the end of the world if there is no stand-alone Wikipedia article for the journal. I was actually considering supporting a redirect to list of film periodicals so Wikipedia could provide some basic information about the journal (not much less than what is in the current article). In general, the goal of notability on Wikipedia is outlined at WP:WHYN, "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." (As a side note, not having a Wikipedia article does not mean it will not be considered a reliable source; I am pretty positive no one would dispute referencing it.) The point is, we need to be able to write some substance about the journal beyond the fact that it exists. For example, I found this that talks briefly about your series. Do you know of any similar coverage that discusses the series? If such coverage can be presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quarterly Review of Film and Video, editors may consider that it meets WP:GNG. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I found this which details the journal's history up to 1993, and I think this is a good indication of notability. I linked it at the AfD discussion. If you know of any independent coverage like this, it can be shared at the discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for finding this! Given the issues I recently disclosed on the nomination page, I'd like a bit of time to investigate this to prove (at least to my mind) that this source is truly independent of the subject. If it is, I'd have no hesitation withdrawing the nomination (or !voting against it) on the grounds that your sources show that the subject passes WP:GNG. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

QRFV References

Thanks for the discussion. Our school librarian pulled these references to QRFV:

Ulrich's guide to periodicals lists the journal as being indexed by several companies: http://0-ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com.library.unl.edu/title/1413132255020/281 332 -

ACRL (assoc. of college, research libraries) lists your journal here: http://wikis.ala.org/acrl/index.php/Film_Studies

Here's (one of many) syllabi that includes your journal in a listing of potential research sources: https://faculty.washington.edu/mlg/courses/464Su03/FilmJournals.doc

Here's one of many library guides that includes the journal among other sources: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/filmstudies/reviewslist.html

Worldcat indicates 467 libraries subscribe to qrfv:http://www.worldcat.org/title /quarterly-review-of-film-and-video-qrfv/oclc/19693646&referer=brief_results

Hopefully this will be of some help. WWD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.200.117 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo notability

I have re-added the notability template to the Box Office Mojo article. See this talk page section, maybe add your views there? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thumbs up for your strong and tireless work on the Interstellar article. Here's a kitten that I hope will radiate some warm and fuzzy feelings, I'm sure those will be needed in the days leading up to release.

Sammyjankis88 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dan Setton

Hi. I saw that u created the article on the film State 194 (film). Great work on article. Good info on a little known film. The film is written, directed and produced by Dan Setton. However there is no article on him. I googled in but couldn't find much info on him. If u have any info on him please let me know. --Naveed (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Navhus, thank you for your compliment on State 194 (film)! I saw an opportunity at the time and decided to create an article. I think it should be easy enough to create an article for Dan Setton. Give me a week or so, and I might just do it. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy - Box office

This is a neutral notice for a discussion about the box office section of this film.Spinc5 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Also posted to the TFAR subpage:

Erik, It will be about ten (10) months time between the TFAs, which is almost one year. And multiple users at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film) had opposed, last time, because it was up for a non-specific date and they wanted a date related to freedom of speech and censorship. So it was taking into account those comments from the last discussion, Erik, which is why I chose to nominate for this particular date. I hope you will reconsider, — Cirt (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Christian Toto.

Since I'm not sure if you completely read the old discussions you archived, Toto is a long established professional critic who reviewed films for the Washington Times for years, has been cited cited by Rotten Tomatoes 695 times and counting, was hired by Breitbart (a major news/opinion site, not a group blog) a couple of years ago as an entertainment editor and feature reviewer, is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, and has had his reviews quoted by other media outlets. Do you see the difference between him and the quoted Kos and Salon.com bloggers, who (to my knowledge) are none of those things? It would be a mistake to equate or lump them together, unless we were lumping all the pro critics and pundits together.VictorD7 (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please Don't Forget John Carter

This should necessarily be included in the list of White Savior films, along with Dangerous Minds. Here's an article from which to point additional sources on the topic: http://www.academia.edu/4883344/Do_the_White_Thing_An_Analysis_of_the_White_Teacher_Saviour_Film_as_a_Colonial_Civilizing_Mission_Narrative

DesGlas (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)DesGlas

Ethnicity

Is not a social construct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.45.93 (talk • contribs) 01:59, November 15, 2014‎

Do you remember?

Hello Erik. I hope that you are well. I can't remember which MOS has the instruction about using "is" in the lede section for films, TV shows etc. I want to copy it into my list of useful links and templates. I am hoping that you know where it is but if you no worries. Enjoy your weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 17:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I cannot think of a specific place, but WP:LEAD#Proper names and titles makes it clear that "is" is proper to use across works. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. I stumbled on this WP:TVLEAD last night. I am wondering if we should add a variation on the last paragraph to WP:MOSFILM. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
MarnetteD, what about the last sentence at MOS:FILM#Lead section? I think that was the one intended to make sure we use "is" rather than "was". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I missed that. It looks good although IMO the word "presumably" could be problematic considering that we have 100s of articles about lost films. I think that situation has been discussed before though I can't remember the outcome. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Long time no speak, sir

Hey man! I haven't talked to you in awhile. How've you been? See anything good lately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sock (talk • contribs) 12:03, November 19, 2014‎

Hello, it is good to hear from you! :) I've been pretty busy IRL the past few weeks. I have not had the chance to edit too much. I saw Chef for the second time last night (after seeing it the previous Sunday). It's a great indie comedy; I recommend it if you haven't seen it yet. Other movies I've seen this month: Hercules (different take on the legend but still rather cookie-cutter), Falling Down (which struck me as pretty dated), A Field in England (well-shot and well-written but pretty freaking bizarre), and Belle (really liked, especially in the light of ongoing discussions about race). Oh, and I saw Interstellar in 70mm IMAX. :) The sci-fi nerd in me loved it, though I can understand others finding the story weak. How about you? Find time away from school to watch any movies? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I know the feeling, classes have been kicking my ass lately. Coming up on finals is always "oh shit I should've worked ahead" time. I have Chef on hold at the library, so I'll be picking that up soon. Hercules didn't especially interest me, but I'm sure I'll watch it when it comes out on Blu-ray. Hard not to love The Rock. I can see how Falling Down would seem dated: it certainly feels like it's 20 years old. I still can't help but enjoy it though. I'll check out A Field in England, Ben Wheatley's segment in The ABCs of Death was pretty enjoyable, so why not? I also really enjoyed Belle. Tom Wilkinson got me to watch that one, and I'm glad I did.
Interstellar is on my slate for this weekend. I put it and Big Hero 6 off in favour of Birdman, which opened kinda near me (30 miles, but whatever). It was phenomenal, definitely check it out if it opens close to you. Also saw Nightcrawler, which surprised me with how fantastic it was (Jake Gyllenhaal being a massive part of that). I'll have to watch it again, but it's a definitely strong contender for my favourite film this year. John Wick was also really enjoyable. It was fantastic to see Keanu back in a role that suits him, and he has not forgotten how to kick ass. The fight choreography in that movie was bonkers. Also saw Fury a few weeks back. Thought it was pretty damn good, had some excellent performances (Shia LaBeouf and Logan Lerman leading the pack there, oddly) and great direction. Definitely better than Sabotage, as Ayer's excessive violence served a purpose. I'm 100% sure that there's a few I'm forgetting but I can't think of them. I'm really anticipating when Foxcatcher and Whiplash come around, which is odd since both of those feature middle-aged teachers who are verbally and physically abusive. Huh.
Anything you're looking forward to? Feel free to ignore that wall of text. Sock (tock talk) 17:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You have excellent taste! :) Aside from Sabotage, I'm interested in all the movies you named. Unfortunately, I don't go to the theater very much for non-blockbuster films; I tend to watch them on Netflix or Redbox. I'm interested in Nightcrawler because Gyllenhaal has been fantastic on the indie scene recently with movies like Prisoners and Enemy. I'll be watching 22 Jump Street with a few friends tonight. When I'm at my parents' place next week, I'll probably try to catch one of these independent movies as part of a family outing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I do my best, haha. Thanks man. Sabotage was decent, I would say watch it if there's literally nothing else on and you're just looking for a violent action movie. If that situation arises, don't sweat it. It will not make a very big difference. I can understand why you don't go to the theatre for non-blockbusters, my parents and sister are the same way. I just love to support any film I can, and I have a well-enough paying job that I can afford to go to the theatre every weekend. I also have few expenses since I live at home, so that's an added bonus.
I very very highly recommend Nightcrawler be the first of the films you see, followed very closely by Birdman. Prisoners was truthfully my favourite film from last year (not including Her or Inside Llewyn Davis because those didn't come to my theatres until 2014), and Enemy is a film that will stick with me for an extremely long time. I've watched it four times now, I think I've got a pretty solid theory on what it all means.
Did you like 22 Jump Street? I don't know if you liked the first one, but if you did, I'd be astounded if you didn't like the second. Sock (tock talk) 03:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Sock, I'm impressed that you saw both Prisoners and Enemy too! :) Did you see this about the cinematography in Prisoners? I found Her masterful and a bit chilling at the same time, the idea of humanity being leapfrogged by AI. I really enjoyed 22 Jump Street; I felt like the theme of brotherly love was hammered excessively, but there were so many golden moments ("Something cool!") that made it worth the watch. :) I'll keep Nightcrawler and Birdman in mind, for sure! I think I don't make it to theaters because I don't have that much free time outside work; it is tough to carve out a night to go to the theaters. It is easy to rent a movie and start it at my own discretion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I get out to the theatre a lot, and when I don't, I watch whatever I can right as it comes out on home media. I've probably seen Prisoners three times and Enemy a solid five or six just to get a good comprehension of it. And I had not watched that cinematography video, thank you for that! I absolutely adored Her, Spike Jonze has done no wrong as far as I'm concerned. That was probably my second favourite movie of 2013 after Prisoners. I'm glad you enjoyed 22 Jump Street! I can totally see where you're coming from on the brotherly love thing, but I'm glad the great comedy managed to overcome it a bit. And that all makes sense, I'm sure Nightcrawler and Birdman will be on Blu-ray sooner rather than later. Sock (tock talk) 12:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#External_links, I'm a bit confused about the wording. I'm trying to apply it to a GA review of Edge of Tomorrow. In that article, the external links section includes links to Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic. However, these same links already appear in the references. Should the ext. links section duplicate them as well? Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello Viriditas. I think that this WP:ELRC might be of help. I know that I usually remove them from an EL section if they have been used as a ref but, I mostly deal with article that are much smaller (by that I mean that the refs and ELs can be read without scrolling up and down) then the the one you are reviewing. There could be an argument made that - with such a large reference section - it is not helpful to the reader to make then hunt through it to find the links to those external sites. Just my opinion and Erik will probably know of policy pages that address this that I am unaware of. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, there are different opinions about whether or not to include these as external links. I understand that it seems to be redundant, but external links are meant to provide access to content that would not be available in an ideal (Featured) article. So for reviews, obviously we are not going to put in every review available in the article body. The external links provide that access. It is just happenstance that these links are both being used as references for the aggregate scores as well as external links to access additional content. The same can be said for Box Office Mojo since it provides much more box office detail than an ideal article would provide, although I do think Edge of Tomorrow provides plenty of box office detail. So like MarnetteD said, without highlighting them as external links, they'd be difficult to reach. Maybe these links' inclusion could be more explicitly justified with text saying what the links are for? E.g., "a collection of hundreds of film reviews"? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for the clarification. I will mark it resolved for now. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Lead

Release dates of films

Hi. Hope you're well. I was wondering when films are released in film festivals such as in Venice. Would that count as its release date or would the date it was first seen by the public count? The one I was querying was Killer Joe. Its premiere in Venice was Sep 2011 but its North American release was July 2012. So does it count as 2011 release or a 2012 release? Cowlibob (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Cowlibob, the consensus I've seen is to use the festival date. It's because it has been screened for independent consumption (the critics and audiences who attend the festival). When the year is different, though, it can help to be clear-cut in the lead section about the film being at a festival in one year and in commercial theaters the next. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Cowlibob (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for helping assess Edge of Tomorrow for the GA review and taking a lead role in editing and offering tips for improvement. Your opinion was valuable and insightful. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, appreciate it! Thank you for being very diligent in the process. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Big fan Of Your Work

Big fan of your work in relation to film articles on Wikipedia, it makes me happy to see someone who enjoys teaching the public about films, weather good ones or bad! I deleted the earlier post as i didn't know if was bad etiquette to post these sorts of messages on peoples boards. But thanks for reaching out and agreeing to review/edit work i do as even though i may know a lot about film, i know nothing about how wikipedia works and your insights will be invaluable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmLover91 (talk • contribs) 10:01, December 19, 2014‎

FilmLover91, appreciate your kind words. It is not bad etiquette to make such posts. :) I certainly hope you can learn the ropes for editing Wikipedia and apply your knowledge of movies! Are you maintaining a watchlist? If so, you can put WT:FILM on it. It is the talk page of the WikiProject Film community, where I participate a lot. You can feel free to ask any questions of me and other editors there! You can start a new thread by clicking the "New section" on the top of a talk page (this will add the new thread to the bottom of the page). You can also leave your signature by typing four tildes (~) at the end; it will show your user name and date and time written. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Erik, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
Sock (tock talk) 16:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, Sock! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


TriiipleThreat (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, 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:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

TriiipleThreat, happy holidays to you as well! :) I hope you have a relaxing break! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, 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:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bignole, happy holidays to you too! Hope all is well with you. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It is, and I hope that you're doing well too. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bzuk! May you have a festive holiday with yours. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas Erik, blessings and best wishes for 2015!
MarnetteD|Talk 19:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours, MarnetteD! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we discuss a few compromises?

Erik, I'd like to discuss a few changes to the White Savior narrative page that I truly believe are reasonable and will address my issues with the page and the criticisms of many others (they're there, even if you had more stamina than all of them but me). Because you have so much ownership of that page, they won't happen unless you get on board. I know you are skeptical of me because I wanted to delete the page. I should explain that I only voted that way because I believed the page required some serious work and would do better with a fresh start. I never have believed that this trope does not exist. You have convinced me that it easily passes WP:NOTABILITY, and as was pointed out multiple times, articles should not be deleted for cleanup. So with that, I'd like to work with you to address what I think are serious problems with the page, that can be fixed with some minimal changes. Some are changes you probably won't like, and if you decide to dig your heels into the ground I won't be able to make them. However, I do think that you'll get fewer people like me disrupting your work, so it will be to your benefit. If you're willing to give a little ground, let me know and we'll talk.

Captain Stack (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I used to be a writer and editor for the Arts & Leisure section of a newspaper. My involvement in this page is because I care a lot about film and think how we discuss it matters a lot. Captain Stack (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

CaptainStack, we can develop the article to be more academically rooted. I have the Hughey book and have been meaning to use it for some time, and Betty provided a source that should be used too. She thinks that there could be more coverage, and it is possible to do that. I think we can easily have a section on historical films as well as other genres. That means we could ultimately replace the journalistic commentary from Salon.com and The Atlantic in the long run. I'll replace the references for individual films as well where applicable, and I can beef up descriptions to articulate more fully why a film was analyzed for this particular trope. I'm glad to hear that about not deleting articles that just need to be cleaned up. My concern in our exchange is that I have not heard much rebuttal in the way of sources themselves. Betty had a good response in sharing what Pierce had to say, and that is the kind of constructive feedback that's needed to shape the article for the better. Others' criticisms of the topic have been variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT despite the sources available to read, so I am admittedly wary about the article being edited in response to that kind of spontaneity. You can bounce your changes off Betty as well as me. Editors at WP:FILM and WP:SOCIOLOGY can also be contacted to understand how to shape the topic better. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem with the article is structure. The main content of the article is just a two paragraph intro, except much of what is contained in the intro is beyond the scope of an introduction. I think the article needs to be more structured. The intro should contain nothing but what the trope is, and have no evaluations about whether or not the trope is good, racist, cliche, or why the trope is popular. That should be moved into subsections (like a critical analysis section) to make it clear that these evaluations are opinions. We must separate what the trope is from what people have said/written/think about the trope. By jumping into evaluations too quickly, the article appears very non-neutral.
Also, I think that the trope must be explained in a way that is consistent with the films listed. Right now this is demonstrably not the case. The clearer you can define the trope, the fewer problems people will have with the article. part of the definition is that the protagonist rescues people of color, which doesn't hold up well for films like The Matrix where the savior rescues humanity. One of the people quoted says that the films all have it in common that the oppressors must be white, which doesn't hold up well for movies like Blood Diamond where the oppressors are largely black. If the article can't even define the trope, then the commentary and list becomes meaningless. If we can make a definition for the trope that logically puts all these films within it, I would be much happier. Simply moving some of this variation into a commentary section would help a lot with this.
I really don't think this is asking too much, and had the page been structured this way when I first saw it, I'd never have pushed for its deletion. Captain Stack (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You can put your suggestions on the article's talk page so Betty and others can see them. FYI, I have the Hughey book now, and there are seven common denominators that he establishes in researching his body of films. These can be identified in the article and attribute him. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Erik! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@DerHexer: I was not able to log in. It said the home wiki was this, which is not me. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 05:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
How ridiculous. I'll forward this issue to the WMF so that they can fix their unification script. Once this is done, I'll let you know. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@DerHexer: FYI, I am not him either on Wikimedia. I am Wiki-Erik instead. This particular case was why I thought I could not do a global account a while ago. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I see … In (probably late) January 2015, a new account merge tool will be released which allows stewards to merge two or more global accounts. Till then we will get you Erik as a global account. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Your "Chlotrudis awards" edits

Per WP:CSC #1, essentially, if redlinked and verifiable it can be used. Nevertheless, when you make such edits on lists within tables please take a second to adjust the table syntax (e.g., rowspan) as you break table layout when you simply delete an item. These series of edits are disruptive since editors watching those pages have to fix the errors from each of those edits. --Lapadite (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lapadite77! I apologize about breaking some tables. I did not realize it was happening until I got to the Nicolas Cage table and saw it happening. I tried to go back and spot check to see if I had broken any previous tables, but I missed the ones that you fixed. Thank you for fixing them and letting me know; I will pay more attention when I edit tables in the future. As for applying WP:CSC #1, Chlotrudis had an article, but it was deleted due to lack of notability, and we cannot predict if it will get enough coverage in the near future to recreate the article. There are a lot of awards organizations out there in the first place! I actually started a discussion to codify this kind of thing at WT:MOSFILM#Awards organizations' notability; you are welcome to participate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Erik, no worries then. Just wanted to let you know in case you hadn't noticed. I just read the deletion discussion, and after a quick google search, the organization/award appears to have outside (of Boston) coverage, e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17]. I have some general comments re this minor critics controversy that i'll voice in the MOS/Film discussion. Lapadite (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What'cha think

about this... the longest article I've written to date and a fine way to wind up 2014: The Centrifuge Brain Project. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Michael! Hope you've been having a good holiday. Nice job on creating the article. :) Have you seen the film yourself, or did you come across mention of it somewhere and found out that there was no Wikipedia article? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I came across and watched it on Facebook when someone was trying to make others think it was "real" and was succeeding. In researching, I did find a couple mere mentions of it on WP, but no article. I also determined that it had a WP required level of notability, and so (feeding the vacuum) spent some time cobbling together a decent article. The back story behind the film is pretty cool. . Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it is fun to do that kind of thing. :) Now we have an article for the ages! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You think I've established here that Till Nowak meets WP:CREATIVE though WP:ANYBIO? LOL Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year !!!
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
Happy New Year to you too, Michael! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Erik,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Happy New Year to you too, Bill! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In need of some help, if you're able

Hey Erik! Sorry I haven't kept in great touch about Children of Men. The holidays got me pretty pre-occupied and I haven't managed to do a whole lot of large-scale editing. However, I did make a small page in response to this discussion about Boyhood's "See also" section. Since it was realized that several films had been shot over several years, I made a list page called List of films shot over several years (I'm so clever with my titling). While I think the table and its information look pretty good, I honestly have no idea what to put in the lead. Since you tend to be really good with these kinds of articles, I was wondering if you could give me a hand. Thank you, and happy new year! I'll get cracking on CoM soon, don't you worry. Sock (tock talk) 14:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock, Happy New Year! :) That's definitely a good list to start. I don't always have much of a lead section with these lists; List of films featuring drones is my most spartan. I would say to find sources that cover these kinds of films, such as Googling both 'Boyhood and Hoop Dreams to see if there is any general commentary available. For example, this says, "We've seen people age onscreen before, but usually in documentaries like Michael Apted's 'Up' series or the long-ranging 'Hoop Dreams.' For Linklater to space out the production of a narrative movie over such a long period of time gives the material genuine heft; most films would never dare feature performers clearly going through their awkward years of adolescence..." You may also want to find sources that list these films to reinforce this list's notability per WP:NOTESAL. This means you should at least have sources doing a similar list, though not all list items have to come from a sourced list. Hope that helps! Anyway, I had busy holidays too, and I look forward to tackling CoM with you. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting site

Chuck Palahniuk posted a link to jackdurden.com on his Facebook page. He seems to enjoy provoking theories about the Fight Club characters based on interpretations of the film's dialog and visuals. This one contends that Marla, Bob, and possibly others were also invented personalities of the narrator's. (And, the site seems to have gone down due to the increased traffic, but here is the cached version.) --Laser brain (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Black/white hat symbolism

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit on Black and white hat symbolism in film, and I thought I should explain myself. Category:Western (genre) characters is a container category, and I was trying to clean it out, and I felt that since the article is not specifically about a character, it should have the category removed, though I can understand why it would be categorized there and will defer to your judgement. Thanks spiderjerky (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. We could just replace it with Category:Western (genre), perhaps? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, looks like someone beat us to it. Thanks for your time. spiderjerky (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik/Archive_29&oldid=1201002451"