User talk:Erik/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Where does a Sandman look for love?

Hey, I was wondering, can I create a secondary sandbox, or is one all we get? I wanted to work on assembling the bits of the various Braveheart sections in WP, but a temp page seems a bit over the top. Suggestions? (Alien and Big can pipe in, too - you peeping Toms  ;) )Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(and I thought the section title was rather wry and amusing - tough crowd). Thanks for the insight. Both sub-pages are up and running now. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Yeah

Yeah, I detected a bit of sniveness about it. I think that anyone that fights against the use of non-free images (generally, every image you'll find in a film or television article) kind of takes "better than thou" attitude with anyone that either fights them, or just isn't privy to some new admenments to the guidelines, They generaly never make it public knowledge that they are holding debates about the use of fair-use images, and so it's a wonder when you have tons of reverts from editors that have no idea they've adjusted definitions to be more specific to certain things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that. Because they had Halloween up there for, I don't know what the time was, but at one point in the day there was the poster, and at another point there was, then by the end of its run the poster was back. I understand the concern over the legal ramifications of using copyrighted images, like such, but one would think that a film poster could be easily justified on the front page. I don't about you, but I'm not going to think twice about seeing a bolded "Halloween" on the front page, I'll generally just think of the holiday and move on. But an image of the film is a "hello".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can be sure that when we get ready to nominate Spidey 3 for anything status, we better have all our images in order.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the quote boxes too. They look really snazzy on the page. If we can work two images into the plot and justify them, great. I just have a bad feeling that any images in the plot are going to be called into question, as the plot really isn't "critical commentary" about the film, and so I think the war the admins and other editors have on non-free images will be attacking those placed in a plot section as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Because they are cracking down on Featured Lists. There were tons of Featured episode lists that had a screenshot next to a quick synopsis. Well, not it's just the synopsis. They've removed all screenshots from FL's on television episodes. It makes me think that they're going to crack down on film plots (if they already haven't...I don't know about you, but I don't watch any film articles that are FA status). Worse comes to worse, we can simply remove them..so I'm not saying leave them out because they may request their removal, just that we should be prepared to defend the rationale of any non-free image we place on that page, in any section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I completely understand their side. You're right, other than film festivals, which are generally no good to film articles (unless it's just a group shot of the entire cast...and even then we have to hope the one taking the picture is the one uploading the picture), there is no such thing as "free images" when it comes to the topic of films. There would be nothing but text, because everything from the film poster to a screenshot is copyrighted. Even concept art is copyrighted. The whole situation strikes me as two fields of a given area, both strive for the same goal, but they are just going about it in two different directions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is pretty cool. Geeze...let's hope we don't screw up. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. He's just adding it back, with no explaination. Some people just have to have that "thing" they call theirs in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Doomsday

The "cast of around 200" thing was added by User:81.178.255.200. I don't have a cite-able source right now.

I can tell you that 81.178.255.200 is right though. My roommate (a makeup artist) got pulled into helping out at the set yesterday and she is going up there again tomorrow. Short of sending some of her photos to AintItCoolNews and then citing the resulting post, I don't have a source we can use in the article. AlistairMcMillan 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar - it's nice to have the work appreciated. I got in over my head with it, spending probably about 70-80 hours in the last week working on this. I'm pretty exhausted. I had not even considered there may have been prior existing image wars...that's great if these ended those so people can move on. Let me know of any in particular that were noteworthy. --David Shankbone 17:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah - yes, I noticed some of the ones I replaced were pretty horrible, like the Drew Barrymore and Ricki Lake ones. --David Shankbone 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 poster

Hey, please don't make the change until the discussion over the poster image has been concluded. This can be seen as ignoring consensus. I would suggest presenting more information than "I haven't seen it anywhere" because when I did a Google search, multiple websites presenting the image came up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not use the poster with the date on it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConsoleZ (talk • contribs) 14:30, May 2, 2007

It is time. I'm going over to my buddy's and then it's Spider-Man 3 at 11:59pm (that's 1 hour and 36 minutes for those that are behind in the time zones).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok here's the run down. It's worth the money. It's slow in the first two acts, but high octane in the final one. It picks up speed from start to finish, but not at a pace most will enjoy. About half the movie is primarily based on Peter and MJ's relationship. Also, Danny Elfman's music (not theme, as that was utilized throughout the film) is missed. All in all, it wasn't as good as Spider-Man 2, but darn sure better than just about most of the second sequels that are out there. On a ratings scale, it's probably a 3.25/5.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, even though I liked the movie, it seemed that the entire "Spider-Man" story was just tacked on to this character drama between Harry, Peter and MJ. You really don't see that much of Spider-Man or any of the villains in the first act of the film. It seems like they spliced in some quick shots to satisfy people, while spending the rest of the time on just the relationships between the 3 primary characters. Yes, Venom really did seem underused. Topher is awesome as Brock, but (and I already knew how much time "Venom" was going to get on the screen b/c I read it on MSNBC) he still seemed stapled on...and that is most likely because of Avi. Raimi shouldn't have given in. It would have been better to maybe introduce the symbiote at the beginning of a later film, and have an entire film devoted to its story, half on Peter, half on Brock, instead of the way it was used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Barny

Thanks dude. But you're more deserving of such an award.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Except for the weird third one that seems short. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding Category entries

I went looking for the entries where CoM came into play. How did you find them? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Critical Reaction

Hey, Im sorry about the rating, but after May 4th, I think we could insert the rating of the film in multiple countries into the article. What do you think? `GTAGeek123 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the ratings issue is resolved! :). -GTAGeek123 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Happy Editing to you too! -GTAGeek123 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

I'll erase the credits and provide suggestions instead if I can think of some. My mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangsta1542 (talk • contribs) 19:04, May 2, 2007

Re:Puss..............in boots

I'd probably prod is first. That's 3 years away, with no definite. If the third film bombs horribly (not likely, but still possible) then they'd probably scrap. Something to keep on a "Shrek (film series)" page (if one exists). I sincerely hope a "Puss in Boots (2011 film)" film article hasn't already been created.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go for the merger since the page exists. The same goes for the Puss in Boots film. There's nothing in either of those articles. At least your Nottingham film has some information to go along with it. Speaking of which, I can't believe anyone would be Russell Crowe 20 mill to be in a movie. He's not box office gold.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant to tell you, you probably can't justify fair use for the Will Smith image, because it has that IGN watermark on it. Thus, we're treading on their trademark "IGN" logo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Just upload it as a "newer version" and change out your sources. I think the problem is that we can justify its use from the original source, but not from a secondary source that has marked it. I'm still trying to replace all the Smallville images that have "kryptonsite" all over them (even though they will mostly be deleted once I'm finished with the new season pages...since we have the MOD SQUAD of non-free images going around).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Only 25 hours

That's awesome. You can bet your bottom dollar that it would be frought with plot expansions and useless trivia, or vandalism. I think that plot is probably already too long, but I won't word count it for fear that I'll read it. It was hard enough to add that alert in it, my eyes kept trying to focus and read. Only 25 hours for me. My buddy and I are going to catch the midnight showing at 11:59pm tomorrow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's such a huge movie, you'd think that you'd get the captioned films same time as everyone else. Society amazes me at times. What my buddy and I decided was that we'd see it when it opens, and then go see it again when it arrives at the IMAX here in town. My only problem is, this midnight showing...for a 2 hour and 40 minute film....I'm going to have to go to the bathroom at some point..I know it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think, so long as AWE doesn't try and pack too much in, they will break any records Spidey 3 sets. I thought Pirates 2 was good, but it seemed like they were trying to following Spider-Man 2 by developing their characters more (which I didn't care for some of their choices). I'm hoping my IMAX experience will be better with S3, as the speakers went out in the theaters, so it was all MONO sound. But, it was still worth it. Tobey, while being the "bad Peter" does some thing that make it worth the 6,7,8 bucks you pay for admission.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So much for the "if we don't have a trivia section it will keep people from adding trivia"..I've removed 4 attempts by 3 different editors to add a trivia section. lol. Oh, I found the other "Snitch" link and removed it. It was on Lucky You (film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, didn't know about it. I just went back and looked at where that editor had contributed. Apparently others have added that link then.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that we are using King Kong as the second most, while the List has X3 as the second most in budget.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed everything in question. First, we were citing Wikipedia for Wikipedia, and the "list of most expensive films" is not verifed. They are using BOM.com and other similar sites that don't cite their own sources. If Pirates 2 really was 225m then that would make it the second most. It's best to just leave any assumptions to the wind and just state the verifiable information we know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We reached #2 on the Wiki charts, and since we'll never reach #1, I think that's a tremendous achievement. Well, sort of.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the history page? See how many users have red talk page links. That's never a good sign.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read my talk page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bignole#No_one_cares... the comment by Art), it appears that some don't like me removing the info. After I told him about avoiding trivia, he came back a few hours later and added about 10 times as much trivia as he did the first time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I love and hate at the same time, is going to sleep and waking up the next day to do clean up. I love it, because I just like working on the site, but I hate it because it's so tedious to have to deal with people that neglect to read guidelines and think they can do whatever, but choose to do it at the wee hours of the morning when most are asleep.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your so thoughtful for newbie editors. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try and make sure that I leave a little heads up in the summary if I think something will be spoiled by my comments.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your stand on the format of the page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is probably the most hysterical thing I've seen. I thought I saw the main page red earlier today. That's classic. I bet it was someone that got tired of them removing non-free film posters from "featured article of the day".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, it'll be good to get your full attention back to the article, instead of having to side-step a lot of discussions because of spoilers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say, either there isn't a time delay on the semi-protection, or people are creating accounts and waiting just to edit this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked his log, they are just waiting. He created his account January 2007.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Linkspamming

I honestly don't understand the difference between what I've been posting and what anyone else posts in film and actor articles. I'm a journalist. This is legitimate, high-quality and informative content. I have nothing to advertise. I genuinely just have fascinating information to share with the Wikipedia community. Rather than going back and forth like this and tagging me as someone who I'm not, would you be so kind as to visually illustrate how and where a post for this content would be considered appropriate? Thank you for your time. --AdamFendelman 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the apparent problem. While helpful guidance, people on here keep sending me to scores of massively long articles. I am honestly reading them, attempting again to follow requested guidelines and somehow keep getting it wrong. This is the third time now I'm requesting a specific, visual illustration of how the apparently inappropriate posts I'm doing can be made appropriate. Can you edit a deleted post from me and show me how you'd change it so it's fair game? That would be extraordinarily helpful. Thank you. --AdamFendelman 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Images

I can kind of see removing it for the CD albums, because generally (and this is not always the case) the real information on an album is through the daughter article of the film. You don't get any actual criticism for the music on the film article, unless you just don't have a daughter article for the soundtrack and you keep all the info with the film (in which case I would say the image is fine). It's a fine line, which would depend on the article. I can't say that I would agree with its inclusion if you have a separate article for it. I don't see a point for the image if you are only going to have a couple lines of info and then simply say "see 300 (soundtrack).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean he just plans to delete the image outright? If he's bypasses discussions and just deleting outright then that would be an abuse of power, and I would immediately take to the Admin noticeboards. Just looking at the music section, there appears to be some critical commentary on the soundtrack. It isn't a lot, but there is enough in my eyes to warrant a real discussion of its inclusion in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll be no problem. Wiki isn't going anywhere....unless some over zealous Admin deletes the whole site on the basis that "nothing is free".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

An issue I see is that we have one image for the soundtrack on the film article, and a completely different image on the soundtrack article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw and I've "watch"ed it. I'll be interested to see how this pans out. You can make the argument that the entire article is critical commentary on the film as a whole, and the poster is the most expansive image for illustrating the work "as a whole". It's weak, but I can find an answer for anything..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Home

Did you gradumitate, or do you have an internship lined up for the summer?
Btw, did some basic copyediting on the SM³ article. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Spins a web, any size

Thought you might enjoy this Spidey-based joke -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(and franjly, I'm a little insulted that no one laughed at my sandbox joke) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, think of synonyms for lady parts, goof. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Barnstar

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Nehrams2020, hereby award Erik the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Thank you for your excellent work in improving so many film articles in Wikipedia. Keep up your dedicated efforts in developing articles about upcoming films! Awarded 00:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrek 4

Eh. I'd AfD it, but I'm sort of ambivalent. It's probably going to happen, unless 3 tanks. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim Whitaker

I'm not sure what happened here, but I have no idea how you could consider the first American on top of Everest not notable. There was a good reason the article was orphaned, it was misspelled (it should have two t's). I've created a redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Information not in citation"

Then why don't you add some citiation then, instead of just removing it? And have no idea how to add citiation (english is not my mother language, and I'm far from being a computer nerd, so the explanation how to do it is too complicated for me). If you are as interested in The Invasion as you pretend to be, you knwo damn well the added information is taken from the official site. 193.217.193.159 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

By the power of Greyskull....I HAVE THE POWER!!!

So, have you started any prep work for the He-Man movie that will potentiall star Brad Pitt (or so says Movies.com)?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and that dancing baby that always appeared on Ally McBeal (my mother watched it all the time) would make a perfect henchbaby. I figured you had already started some prep work, like the others. I think it would be interesting to see what happens with the film. If they really do go through with it, I think that will be on the forefront of my watchlist. Masters of the Universe is one of my favorite films (own both VHS and DVD); it's just so bad that it's entertaining.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Henchbaby.heh. I am not sure if I would leave an unsupervised minor in the care of a sword-wielding man who wears a fur speedo, leather boots and a metal harness, but then, I'm odd that way.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Iron Man, Iron Man..does whatever and iron can.....er...wrong theme song

Did you see the video and photos for Iron Man? Nothing is said in the video, it's shot from afar. Just thought it was cool to see the suit in live action.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, from what limited view there was, it looked pretty good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the three images show them getting him ready to throw a car I believe. He's uh...rather huge in comparison to Iron Man...lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He could have 1 villain that is behind the scenes for the first two films, and doesn't come out till the third (at least not in "battle mode" for Iron Man). Maybe The Mandarin will be the one pulling the strings. I don't know. Maybe they just changed their minds and opted to just go with Iron Monger. Have you heard anything about casting for The Mandarin?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Future's looking dim

The proposed recreation of Spider-Man 4, and comment by Spartaz, makes me think we should probably try and make some headway with that future films guideline. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, they closed the AfD for that "Sequel trilogy". It's amazing that a bunch of fanboys can keep a page alive just be bandinging together and skewing the discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. I believe that's the first time I've seen them attack plot images. I mean, two is generally stretching the rationale, especially if we do our job and keep the plot section neat and concise, but I don't think I've seen any actually attacked...well attacked beyond a "please add a fair use rationale for this image". Sorry to hear about your potential Wiki-invasion. I changed my password earlier this week because of all that stuff, but, I'm glad to hear that they failed in their attempt.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What kind of revolt, and where can I ignite my torch?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just let me know when, I'll bring my tiki torch (...my mom says I can't have a real one).lol. I read on one of those Wiki pages, probably the Non-Free content page, where an editor (probably an admin) said that we can have articles that are the best of Wikipedia, and not have any non-free content on it at all. Obviously this guy has no idea what a film article would look like if we removed every non-free image from it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. I find it interesting that Admins, and some editors, think that if you have that little userbox that says "i'm an admin" that you are god to Wikipedia. It's a popularity vote. Obviously there is some critiquing of the user's ability to do the job well, but in the end, all they are doing is saying "i think I can trust you to not abuse these privileges", and that has nothing to do with an admin's understanding of policy, especially subjective ones at that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that prep one I made is still in the history of the future films articles. All you'd have to do is suppliment his latest revert.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if he manages to get it overturned (which is possible, especially if you have a friendly admin at your back), it doesn't matter. That proves that there are some admins out there that actually review cases to provide a fair assessment of the situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is probably proof positive that he can have someone unblock him, but it's also proof that others find a problem with his systematic removal of images in question.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he probably would, and he did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP..lol, that was some emotion I think I have rarely seen, if ever, from you.....but I completely concur so it's ok. Like they say..A friend in need....is probably friends with another Admin so they'll get off — well, I don't think they saying goes quite like that, but for some reason that on rings more accurately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, my first ever block on this site (I was a newb then...heck I got blocked for real, even though the other times the admins that blocked debated about the ethical reasons to block me when I was trying to get to go to the talk page).. was when an admin blocked me to win the argument. If you can't edit, you can't argue. I saw the part where he said "i have had no contact with those other admins"....yeah, and? Cops stick up for each other too, and they don't have to know each other to do it, it's the unwritten code...I believe that have a name for it to, but alas it escapes me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-man 4

If you're referring people to Spider-Man film series#Future on the talk page, why don't you want them to be redirected there by the article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We could set it up as a redirect, and then have the page full protected. This way you won't have to worry about novice editors recreating a page for a film that doesn't exist. Just a suggestion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything is set. It's redirected, and fully protected, so its kind of the best of both worlds.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:I did it!

Seems like it was Mr.Brown (the fine gent that protected Spidey 4) that passed the article into GA status. I'd compare what was passed into GA with how it looks now. Maybe it just got into horrible shap since February when it was passed. If not, then I'd probably ask him about it, and tell him your concerns. I haven't seen the film yet (i've been meaning to buy them all, but summer classes are going to start for me tomorrow..so I'm kinda broke). From what I saw when I glanced at it, it looked choppy. The opening sentence: "written by, directed by, and starring Sylvester Stallone"???? That could easily be written better. It repeats itself in two paragraphs saying "it's the final film in the series". Heck, the entire lead needs work. I see a lot of uncited (probably vandalism in the guise of encyclopedic information) information in the casting, original research in that "references to previous films"....I don't even have to finish going down the page to know this article needs to be delisted and cleaned, thoroughly. 02:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the revert. Is it possible that an article could have been passed into GA status and been worse then it currently is?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You should see our guidelines for future films Erik.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, from reading that review of the 3RR nomination, it basically says to me that Wikipedia lives the "protect your own" lifestyle. How hard can it be to report an Admin for violation of something? Not that hard at all, but getting another admin to block his brother-in-arms...that's a different story. Apparently, people look at admin status as if that individual knows all the rules, lives by the rules, and is above the rules. Ed didn't violate 3RR yet, but I love how when other editors are protecting the consensus, they are still blocked for 3RR violation on the grounds that it's still reverting; yet, when an admin does it he's preserving the code of Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the irony was not lost on me, fresh from my day off from dancing with Viriditas. I am still hung up on the fact that I still expect admins to be more like...well, like Erik or Slim Virgin. These guys just clowns with wide pants. They are seriously painting themselves into a corner with this new interpetation of #8. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The first time's always painful

If you get some free time (free time on Wikipedia..LOL, yeah right) could you take a gander at this FAC. It's my first nomination, and I'd appreciate any input for its improvement. It's on the Aquaman pilot, so it won't be a long article to read.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate all the help. I've worked on everything you've suggested so far with exception to a few of them. Apparently (there were some moves), naming conventions state that if a show is not picked up, and only has a "pilot" then it's a "TV program". I think because "program" is meant to convey that there is only one episode of it, instead of a "series" of episodes. If you read my earlier comments on the FAC, I would actually like to remove the entire "reaction" section. Because it wasn't formally released, there are no truly "professional" reviews. If you look at what is there, nothing really grabs and says "hey, I'm a well known critic of television shows". I think the objectivity behind its iTunes sales speaks for itself. It took me forever to find a "bad" review of the pilot, and everything else, although they are "good", is not "professional" in regards to a criticism section. Unlike shows that have been released to the general public, or films that have huge releases, this was regulated to iTunes (and later Xbox).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

I know. I posted in WikiFilm here. I will do my best to reach Ed regarding keeping the images in place. What I find infuriating is that admins like FutPerf delete images, then let us know that we can oppose it before deleting the image anyway. there seems to be a glaring lack of oversight on that practice. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point with regards to "silence of consensus" assumes that all users are fully informed about our non free content policy, which I can assure is not the case. With regards to copyright issues, the burden of proof is on the uploader to demonstrate that an image is usable under our exemption policy. With that in mind I do not my consider my edits at all disruptive. ed g2s • talk 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He was reported here. Can't say we didn't warn him. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It was already responded to. What a bunch of maroons. If they want us to follow new interpretations of policy, it might be helpful if they let the community know about it. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, just saw the new 3RR complaint go down in flames. Am I just wrong, or are admins supposed to be behaving somewhat better than a fraternity of crew-cutted scuts? O, but to have used their excuse when I was accused of edit-warring with Viriditas. :) I could have got off, too!

Anyway, what I think we should do is write in so very, very much about the images that there would be no question whatsoever that the image was being addressed. I am not saying we should write badly, but if they want descriptions, I say we give it to them. Its the next best thing to pointing to a few FA articles and have them rip them apart, pissing off the entire WikiProject Film.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

300

Figured I might as well throw my hat into the ring if I could do so without causing too much trouble. The whole thing is a little ridiculous and it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. I (like most every other editor here) figured if I stated the points that I thought were valid it might help, but he's using circular logic to defend his point (we give this to you but there's the potential for abuse, so we don't let you actually use it). Hewinsj 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Snap, you moved everything as I was posting this response. I thought I broke it! Hewinsj 02:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I was checking in on the lead argument that just resolved itself and took 2 weeks off because it wasn't doing me any good. The quiet was nice while it lasted. Hewinsj 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why the Wikibreak? E-mail me of leave a Talk page note. --David Shankbone 03:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Come back soon. Your informed criticism of Children of Men is sorely needed. —Viriditas | Talk 04:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Good to hear; you are beyond a doubt one of the best contributors in the Film project. Don't let it get to your head. :-) —Viriditas | Talk 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Admin??

Thanks for catching that...I don't know what I would have done is someone else would have seen that. I quite possibly would have had to move to another Wikipedia, the stigma would have surrounded me here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just read what you wrote. How respectable of you. Let's see how it turns out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, I hope you enjoy it. I can't wait for it to come to IMAX here, because I want a better quality projection for a final verdict of the film. Speaking of...be prepared to have to deal with all this image stuff for Spider-Man...remember, we have 2 images in the ploT.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Battle the Wiki within

I'm glad you liked it. I've been catching Spidey 1 and 2 on tv (different channels though) lately, and when FX shows Spidey 2, it's always at the train sequence. I could watch that sequence a million times and it always keeps the tension. It's just so powerful, especially at the end when the passengers catch him and hoist him into the air to bring him into the car. Maybe...just maybe, they will make another one and it won't have so many villains, so that it will be able to focus more on the important things (which, right now I think could only be the marriage of Peter and MJ; they can't leave it at that. But, if they can't get Maguire, Dunst, and Raimi back..then I say "LEAVE IT ALONE!").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work on Fight Club by the way. I've celaned up Se7en a little ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if they do Carnage, he's either going to suck horribly, or the film's going to be rated "R". Carnage is a psychopathic serial killer, not really something for children to see. The suspension of disbelief was really playing on that scene when the symbiote fell. If they had removed the symbiote, I think the movie would have been better, because you could focus more on Sandman. I say keep Brock, because it would have been good to get to know the character some before you really use in another movie... but he was wasted, and even died at the end. Oh, and the way you really know the villains were not important at all, because they never got names. Ah! What did you think of "bad" Peter, and his pseudo-gigilo self?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Spider-Man is for kids, so I don't think we could have expected anything less than cringe-worthy comedy, from the guy who made Evil Dead. I think it worked well: dark Spidey murders Sandman, darker Parker is a twit. I personally found Sandman a bit superflous when Venom got involved: you don't think there's any way we can redress the article to focus more on the symbiote? Alientraveller 15:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should supply information rather than interpret it, but it sounds like black-suited Spidey is a chain reaction of wanting to bring in Venom. Still, I guess the article is fine: man, those quote boxes are nifty. Alientraveller 15:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately I'm just happy to supply lots of material for fans to study from and make up their own minds. I found a forum post on Superherohype.com using two citations we've absorbed into the article! Alientraveller 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of forums: people tossed my opinions around like a beachball. Wikipedia was a Godsend. I do like SHH because of all the fan art. On topic, it was the Sci-Fi Wire Producers beefed up Spider-Man 3 and the EW article. Alientraveller 15:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alien, that if they really explored the "dark" nature of the symbiote, children would not have been able to see the film. I thought it was hilarious, out of touch with the film, but still hilarious. Yeah, I like the quote boxes as well. If you look at my Jason Voorhess project, I used a lot of the boxes; they make for a good substitute to a picture.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club

I thought the image was even more important than the others -it illustrates fight club itself. But if you are not happy with it then remove but if you do so please delete the image too -I'm tired of people removing images from films and not deleting the images too - leaving a string of orphaned images. If it is the case it is a big pity that images are being tightened -but I feel there should be a maximum three per articles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work anyway. Impressive. We are all maggots -all part of the same compost heap!!! Hope you are well ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. I do agree really that images should only be used to illustrate the article - it is finding a kind of balance where everyone is happy. I put the image where it said about Pitt and Norton training and boxing and martial art training -maybe we could have specific section towards exploring the techniques of Fight Club itself - this way the image would have a more clear purpose. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All the best then ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 4

Hi,

You are welcome to nominate the new article at AfD if you wish; however, I don't see any violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Uncle G produced sufficient reliable sources to suggest that the film will be made, that substantive information is available regarding it, and that the film is the subject of sufficient media attention such that it is noteworthy. (See exception #1 at WP:CRYSTAL.) Even if the film is aborted for some reason, the existence of sources now suggests that its cancelation would itself be a notable event.

The article is a likely target for unsourced speculation, and may well need protecting in the future. Protection at this time is unwarranted. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, on the basis of the DRV discussion, you shouldn't redirect this without supporting consensus at some talk page first. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is going on here, Erik? Do people really not understand the concept of "crystal balling"? Don't they even bold the part that says "it will be made" in the statement. The irony is that we have people that will fight against anything a studio says ("oh..well the studio is lying if they say the film only cost this, because BOM says otherwise), yet we have others that think just by saying "we want to make more films" that it's the voice of God raining down, and so we must obey. I have a feeling we are going to be forced to live with a stub of an article, fightings months (maybe even more than a years worth) of speculation, rumors and vandalism, because we have premature creationators.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out his contribs, if you haven't already, and see what he said to CBrown and the other admin that protected the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was what I didn't like. Being an admin doesn't give him the right to say "this is moot... I like this better so we're doing it this way". That's a clear abuse of power. It's one thing to say "we didn't agree on redirecting, just deleting", but it's another to unprotect a page and move information in there when the consensus was to delete the page. Regardless of whether its redirected or not, the consensus was clear that it should, in the least, stay deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was debating about whether or not to use Halo, but I felt it was a perfect example of how something could be so sure, and then all of a sudden the studio pulls out at the last second. I still think Superman is the best example of how 20 years of "we will make a movie" still doesn't mean "it is definite". Oh, did you read his recent comment? His "impartiality" to the other editor is quite clear.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I read a comment by Xoloz on the deletion review page. He basically said that even if a review has tons of endorsements for deletion, if he personally feels that it shouldn't be deleted, then he won't close a review with an outcome of "delete". Wow, I'm glad we keep an objective mind to things on Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I find it interesting that people believe that as long as you have some sources then it isn't crystal balling (even though the sources don't say anything specific). I love the part that goes "Xoloz didn't ignore the consensus, there wasn't a consensus" (not direct quote, but basically that). I guess when 9 people say "keep delete" and only 3 people say "give an article" then it isn't clear what the majority is thinking. The deletion review only last a couple of days also. Xoloz was saying Uncle G entered late in the picture with his sandbox article, but he came in 2 days after the review started, and on the third day of the review an admin closed it and protected the page. Hmm.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing more either of us can do for the AfD. If it works the way it should, the page will go. If it doesn't, then we'll have to work hard to make sure we don't get any unsource crap in it. If the AfD fails, I'm going straight to protection requests to get a semi-protection.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Shrek 4 article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a good discussion on WikiProject will be good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I think it will help with people questioning why we have a film series article, and it sounds like it could be really comprehensive in regards to the franchise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll probably have to do some major digging for the older information. I'll have to read through that other article to see what is there. I just saw the lack of citation (namely only 1) and tagged it. I think once we find any attributable source for it, then we should put a merger tag on it. Probably discuss the moving of the "development" info as well. I agree it doesn't have any business there, like the "Canceled Superman films" didn't have business on the Superman Returns page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be one evil lion, but I think I'd be more afraid if it took over a chimpanzee.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. I asked Uncle G why he made the last paragraph redundant, citing Maguire as saying that he'd return if the others did, and his response was "see the top of the page". The top of the page basically told me not to discuss articles on his talk page, only on the article page. Then he tried to say that the information wasn't there before. He's using different sources, but the information is basically the same as it was in April.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're back to our 9 to 3 count that we had at the deletion review. I can only see this being a "no censensus" if the commanding admin looks at the "redirect" and the "delete" as two distinct votes. I personally always see those as the same, but with a different outcome. They clearly both express the removal of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw what you did on the film series page. I think it looks good. Even if you think it is simple, it still looks good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that I can think of is that we should put citations with the numbers. For the most part, we aren't talking about the numbers (reviews and box office) in the prose below, so we'll need to cite it in the tables as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the way it is now invites too much original research. I'm not entirely sure how to handle it. You could do a List of Harry Potter films cast members? I don't know, how much detail on the "characters" are you interested in retaining?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would work better considering how many characters there are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It shouldn't be too bad either since there are only 3 films (thus far), as opposed to Potter's 7 films (in the end).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you want me to drop the "list of batman cast" table that I made awhile back in your sandbox? Then we could just substitute names and remove the coloring.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's basically set up, so you can adjust, add/subtract, rearrange as you see fit. I didn't add the really minor characters, so you may want to do that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be better. Or, at least find a critic that reviewed all three films and incorporate his thoughts on all three (but someone that does it all together would be best).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also thinking we probably cannot justify the use of the 3 film posters on this article, since this articles is a summation of all the films, and not in-depth information on any particular one. You?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about a color scheme for the cast. I just felt that it might have needed a separation between the films and the first cast member, and I didn't particularly think the black would suit it. Yeah, I'll try and see if I can find an image that links all three films (something official), otherwise I say use the first film poster. As for identifying the films in the plot section...You could just link the titles of the films, or use a semi-colon before each title. Not sure about that..  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we'll get any "official" image that contains all three films, not until they release a big special collections edition box set or something.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In the "LEAD" or in that serialized plot section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to include some plot elements, or just leave it with the cast information??  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Ok. Probably should just pull all the films into the sandbox and widdle them down there. This was someone doesn't come along and revert the plots back before anything is done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to have something, otherwise we just have a prose version of the cast table we just made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Something right to the point, something you'd fit in the lead of an article. Peter Parker bitten by genetically altered spider; he takes on the traits of the spider. After losing his uncle, he devotes himself to fighting crime. Norman Osborn, in an effort to save his company, experiments with performance enhancing drugs. As a side-effect, Norman becomes insane and takes on the mantle of the Green Goblin. ... kind of like that, but worded better. I was just listing the key points of the film. Speaking of films, do you remember the animated series that aired in the 90s? I picked up 3 of those DVDs (The Return of the Green Goblin, Spidey vs Dock Ock, and The Venom Saga). I must say, the 5 episodes in "The Venom Saga" were more satisfying than Spider-Man 3. Peter's actions while wearing the black suit, and Eddie tormenting Peter because he knows his secret, that was more tension filled (although not really, because it was a cartoon, but you get the idea) than the film was. Is that bad?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I can't imagine how Sargent couldn't find a good "cliffhanger" to break this film into two. It's easy (at least in my eyes). The first film would have revolved around the black suit, Harry and Marko. We've already established Harry's hatred, so there's no need to work there. This way you could devote the whole movie to building up Flint Marko, and truly bringing out the evil in Peter with the suit. You could also use the film to develop Eddie (the human). By the end of the film, you do the bait-n-switch, and drop the symbiote on Eddie. I think the first time you see "Venom" at the bottom of the bell tower would have been the best moment to say "CUT", go to black and finish with a fourth film devoted entirely to Venom (or possibly a continuation Sandman alongside Venom). This way fans get their tease of Venom and then the whole shibang the next go-round. I really think Mysterio (even though he'd look funny on screen) would make a good villain for a future film. The psychological pain he could cause with all the hallucinations could be awesome.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. It's funny. Makes we want to send out a massive spam of "come see Spider-Man 4's AfD"...at least then it would give a better sample size.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it will be close to 300 mill once Shrek the third hits, and the worldwide take is almost better than what the previous films did (and it's only 12 days old). We can keep a subpage. It won't be the end of the world if the page stays, but we'll certainly have a lot more edits to our count, reverting all the constant speculation. I tried a protection, but the admin had a problem protecting a page that had an AfD going on. So, if it doesn't work, then we can simply request semi on the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. At first I didn't realize how big it was till I tried to scroll down and it began to take up some time just to get to the bottom.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I love how people say "oh, it has 12 references, that means it's well source...we should keep the article".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out this. I'm going to try and get CRYSTAL more detailed in its definition of what is what. Could use your support.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we even pay attention here anymore?

How the hell did this become a featured article? Anyone?...Anyone?...Bueller?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Busy break

You got a serious backlog in article focus. Relax man, you probably got years to improve all these articles. Alientraveller 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. The Untouchables: Capone Rising is ok in my view given the smallness of the project thus far, although the original film is something that needs more work. I should work at The Lovely Bones, and Sweeney Todd too, but even being a big Burton fan, I'm not feeling it. Maybe I'm just not experienced with the tale and find the concept too nasty for him. Oh, and would you drop some citations for The Curse of the Black Pearl on the talk page? I'm looking to improve that given the occasion. Alientraveller 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, and nor did I find an article for Dead Man's Chest. Part of the problem is that the Pirates series have hilariously rushed productions, so not much time for chit-chat. I didn't find articles for the first two Spideys either. Alientraveller 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That link works! For how long though... Alientraveller 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I registered on VFXWorld. I mustered up some effort then. Alientraveller 16:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He's logged it and added it to the page, and removed the nom. Just waiting for the bot, that's all. Alientraveller 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to when you have a little star on your page then. Alientraveller 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Territorial Editors

If Alientraveller is truly such a laudable editor, then he should divulge the nature of his edits to the rest of us, rather than recklessly editing without any explanation for his actions.

Who is watching the watchers?

Osirus 06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thank you.

Osirus 06:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aquaman

LOL, I'm getting conflicting reports.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that later. I was working down my watchlist (just got back from class), and I got to his later. It put a smile on my face to have someone tell Matthew that I was correct. That probably means that he'll never change his choice to "oppose", but, I'll live with that. Let me ask you, what do you think about those "critiques" of the pilot?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll look into that. I think my concern was over the "professionalism" of the reviewers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I contacted the WikiProject League of Copyeditors, although I'm not sure if I did it correctly. I saved the page so hopefully someone will respond in some way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to reformat the Smallville season pages. this is what I'm doing and this is the way it is now.

Durden and his mates

Let me try my hand. But first you got to tell me in one sentence what Fight Club is really about. Alientraveller 20:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I kept looking at the article and basically feel that the themes of the film really rely on its twist, so I'll try two paragraphs, one on plot, characters and a minor mention of themes, and the second on production and reaction. Alientraveller 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

Have you been following this topic? Near as I can figure it, some folk are arguing that Spoiler tags are unnecessary in film articles, as they are a "blatant" NPOV violation. I suspect more than a few are off their meds... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man film series

Sure, I'll put it on the list. Thanks for the invite. —Viriditas | Talk 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The obvious thing that sticks right out like a sore thumb, is the lead: it's way too short. But, you probably already know that. I'll try and come up with more later. —Viriditas | Talk 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, sometimes working on the lead first forces an editor to concentrate their focus on the rest of the article. It's more of an intuitive approach. It's amazing what you'll find when you have to describe the entire series in less than four paragraphs. —Viriditas | Talk 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the left brain technique is superior in most cases. The thing is, the right brain approach comes in handy when you already know the subject, which is true in your case. You already know what the article is going to say and how to write it. But if you forced yourself to write the lead first, your mind would bring up ideas you had forgotten about or had not yet considered, and you will find the article "writing itself". See Flow (psychology). Have a good night. —Viriditas | Talk 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Neat. Film series can be addictively hard work: if you want to extend your work to all series like Batman or James Bond, good luck, but don't lose sight of the films you love the most. Alientraveller 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Great advice; That's exactly how I feel. Write about the things you love. —Viriditas | Talk 12:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Always interested in helping with it comes to film articles, especially those of films that I love (well...not so much Batman Forever and Batman & Robin).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well to answer the easiest, I wouldn't include the animated films. They were direct to DVD, and I think per naming conventions when you just say "film series" you are referring to live action. Atleast, I was instructed to make The Incredible Hulk "TV series", as opposed to "1977 TV series", because there was an animated series called The Incredible Hulk. The 70s live action was being called "'77 series" because it shared the same name with two animated series. When I consulted on it, I was instructed that "TV series" should be the live action, with the animated series being called just that "The Animated Series". So, it makes me assume that you wouldn't normally include them. But, now that I type all that...I'm thinking that it couldn't hurt. Maybe we should hold off and see how the page is first, they can always be added later.

Since Batman is the star of the films, and there isn't any other recurring character in EVERY film (if you include those foreign Batman films) then I wouldn't include anyone else. I would simply link to the "List of Batman films cast members" page. That list is far too long to incorporate on this page, and we'd be getting into "who deserves to be on the page" debates. Easier to just say "here's Batman, for the rest of the crew see this page".

You know me on sorting, I'm all about timelines. But, I think it may be better to list all the films that were made first, and then follow up with a "oh yeah, here's years of failed projects".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think not mentioning the 1966 film would be a bit biased to modern aged movies. Otherwise, we might as well just write about 1 series, since Nolan's films have no direct connection to the Burton/Schumacher films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaaahhh. Yeah, that was in the opening credits. LOL, that's why they are adding him? Yeah, I think we need a better description like you suggested. Something about extended flashbacks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you recall him at the funeral? I didn't, but then again I wasn't looking for him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how the studio will see the latest film. It hasn't done "that" well domestically, compared to the first two, but it's done wonders abroad. The film has been out all of what...2 1/2 weeks and it's performed better than either of the first two films did in the foreign market. Makes me think they will push another film, and probably replace Raimi.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I would see it, at least not opening day. Probably do a Fantastic Four and see it in its last week at the box office, when there are only 8 other people in the theater with you. I was pissed that Raimi gave into Avi. It makes me think that maybe this one was his last one, and he knew he wasn't coming back even if they film did better than the past two combined. I think maybe he was like, "screw it, I'm not going to make anymore, and Avi's been bugging me for 7 years...let him have his way". I really wonder if Raimi is sitting back going "wow, I should never have let Avi talk me into this", or "HAHAHAHA....TOLD YOU SO ARAD!".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I was looking at the diffs, and I guess I didn't hit the "edit page" key the second time to make it go to the current page. Thanks for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work!

I saw your work on The Time Traveler's Wife (film). Great stuff, very well sourced! That book was awesome. Smee 07:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your outstanding contribution to Film on the project, all the while maintaining a polite and kind demeanor during discussion. You are appreciated. Thank you. Yours, Smee 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I will not post this again, but please, it is sincere. I truly do appreciate your polite attitude in all this. I truly don't mind if you keep your stance, in fact, I actually am refreshed and happy that you can have a stance diametrically opposed to mine in this particular instance - and still discuss the issue in a polite and kind way. Thank you. Smee 07:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Batman Begins

Generally, WP:WPChi puts the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag on movies that were either filmed in part in Chicago or set in Chicago. Do you have a problem with such a tag? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Although I only have a citation for one building, I recall that several others looked familiar when viewing the movie. It is likely that other Chicagoans with other expertises and resources might be able to improve the article. You might know better than me, but I even believe the Chicago 'L' is part of the movie. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaargghhhhh!!!!!!!

Well I completed The Curse of the Black Pearl DVD. Any suggestions for what images I should include? Alientraveller 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you replied while I wrote the reply regarding Supes and Bats. Alientraveller 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Film series

I don't have anything on Schumacher, I just had the resources what with Burton on Burton on me. I suggest discussion of the 60s Batman as well as the 1940s film serials too, just to be comprehensive. Plus, don't diss the animated movies: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm was released in cinemas, so that needs a mention alongside the Timmverse, as Batman: The Animated Series was inspired by Batman Returns.

You going to mention anything about Pirates whilst we're at it with Supers? Alientraveller 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My two cents on article structure: I love chronology, and we shouldn't be too reliant on what Rotten Tomatoes collects. On the other hand, I included reception to Burton's films, being that's what made Warner Bros do a turn to campiness. Alientraveller 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe the name isn't quite as accurate. Maybe "film franchise". I'm looking at the naming conventions and it says:

For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be "Series name (film series)." If there are two series with the same name, use "Series name (YEAR film series)", where YEAR is the year of the first film of the series.

I'm not sure how to take "two series with the same name". That's why I think we may need to name it something more broad that will cover ALL the films, and not just the Burton/Schumacher film series, or the Nolan film series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically, DC Comics is owned by Time Warner, but I'm not sure when they picked up the rights. They could have simply optioned the property out to Columbia and 20th Centure Fox for those earlier films. Then again, maybe Time Warner didn't pick up the rights to DC Comics till after those three films were released. I'm not sure how to tie-in just Warner Brothers to the title, because I see what you are saying about WB producing the modern films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just be comprehensive: the 40s serials and 60s films show Batman's first attempts at the big screen. I also have advice to not be rash with your hatred of Canceled Superman films, because I'm enjoying reading the external links. Alientraveller 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd dup because it isn't all talking about one subject per say. It talks about one aspect of the film, and then on another, along with easily verifiable information like Keaton being cast as Batman in-between. Let's people know you got all of it from one source and not just the last sentence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. My concern is that, you and I know Alien and how he works, but other editors won't. Even more so with casual readers, and it seems off to expect them to assume that 1 source at the end of a paragraph is for the entire paragraph.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A copy-editing request

I noticed your recent copy-edits on the Jurassic Park article, amongst others, and I was hoping you could help me out on another FAC. GoldenEye is currently a candidate, and one of the problems it faces is the need for copy-editing. While I was looking through a few other FACs I noticed that you had experience with good copy-editing, and I hoped you would help get GoldenEye to FA status. Your skills would be a true asset to this FAC, I hope you can help. Thanks! - • The Giant Puffin • 08:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - • The Giant Puffin • 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I already said it has nothing to do with the article

I know this doesnt have anything to do with the article but could someone tell me the name of the song and who the creater of the song is in this video?[4] I just needed the information and I already said it had nothing to do with the article. I just needed someone to tell me. If you happen to know the information I need could you please tell me? 24.208.55.168 19:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

Please read this and stop making pointless reversions here. Why do you think we have a bot which fixes these things automatically? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Road to Perdition

On your two questions:

1. I'd leave the film as the main entry for now. The important thing is that the entry is started on the graphic novels (to that end I might go for Road to Perdition (comics) as there is a series). The film is higher profile and should makes more sense taking the top slot. Somewhere down the line it might be that everyone agrees there should be a disambiguation page as the top entry but the priority for now is starting the one onthe comics.

2. All those removals look perfectly fine and I'm glad you were bold - ironically I was just about to remove the trivia section from another entry. The trivia, dleeted scenes and differences sections were just trivia traps and have a tendancy to bloat and unbalance the entry. If someone wants that kind of informaiton I'm sure there are sites for it but I suspect if you delved into the film project's pages it would give a big "NO!!!" to all three. Some information may be potentially worked back in so it was good you dropped it on the talk page (always a good move I find) but looking at it I'd not think much needs saving.

So keep up the good work. (Emperor 02:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

While we are on the same page and have a bit of momentum going I'm going to start a stub on this and we can go from there. (Emperor 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

The Dark Knight (film)

Thanks, Erik, for the mini trailer of "The Dark Knight". I'm afraid that the trailer itself is a fake. But I still enjoyed it. I'm hyped up about "The Dark Knight". Thanks again.

I just saw what you left me. Apparently, you left a message and then I got like 3 right after, and it got lost in the mix. Too bad that was a fake teaser, that sure was one of the best faux trailers I've seen. I remember the ones that people made for Spidey 3, where they used Alien, Spawn, and Underworld clips for scenes of Venom. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club

Forget about GA; you are very close to FA. Nice work. I left a couple comments on talk, and I will probably leave a few more in the next few days, but aside from adding a url and a few other maintenance edits, I will not be editing the article. Keep at it, I think this will be on the main page very soon. —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I self-reverted my addition of the link and I responded on talk saying you had verified the source, but that the link was excerpt-only. I'm still curious about the counterculture bit in the lead, but given time, I'm sure you'll educate me on that as well, although it better be good. ;) I'm hesitant to do anything with The Fountain unless you give me a specific task. If you know what you want, I might be able to help. Have a good week and don't work too hard. —Viriditas | Talk 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What I find fascinating about Fight Club is that it is the cinematic equivalent of the perfect storm. You've got a great writer who has written a great novel, that was adapted into a great script and made into a great film. This is actually quite rare if you think about it. Children of Men can't even hold a candle to it. James' novel is, quite frankly, atrocious, the script is only semi-interesting, and the film engaging merely as bravura, nothing more. Great films like Fight Club are often ahead of their time, and are not appreciated until much later. Let's not forget The Battle Over Citizen Kane, Brazil (film), or how Equilibrium (2002 film) was panned during its release. Regarding the use of the term "everyman" to refer to Norton's character, he is certainly an anti-hero, but his everyman status is not necessarily a universal one, but inextricably linked to Generation X. This is an important distinction, and should probably be made clear in the lead. —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't hear about Choke, thanks for letting me know. As for sourcing GenX, there are dozens; should I find you a good one? BTW, I may be revisiting The Fountain, but I will try to work very closely with you, since you know the subject far better than I do. —Viriditas | Talk 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. I won't make any changes without asking you first, anyway. —Viriditas | Talk 03:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't have much to do with what I was talking about, but I ran across it while I was doing research on Escape from New York and thought you might like to use it in Fight Club. I didn't see it in the current article, and it's a really good source: [1] —Viriditas | Talk 06:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I always thought it would have been del Toro, but I was never very sure. I see that I'm wrong; thanks for that. Atropos 14:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lately

I thought you were all set to go with Road to Perdition and Batman film series and then... So what's been up lately? I enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End btw, and have been keeping a steady eye on that plot. Alientraveller 10:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AWE is good fun, it veers a little more into the grotesque humour of DMC and has a killer twist: do stay behind for the credits, that scene is worth far more than either bonus treat of the first two films. It's a long film, my cinema had an intermission, so don't snack on anything beforehand. Alientraveller 10:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and my Asperger's got in the way: I hope you're doing well with your internship! Alientraveller 10:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, this is my first major attempt at a fictional character, and I'm modelling it on Palpatine. Bit difficult though, given I haven't read that children's book series. Alientraveller 11:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status

From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: In turn, the ship has sailed

That made no sense, but I just felt like breaking "internship" into different words. Anyway, yeah I saw the messages. I hope it's a lot of fun. Is it just "another" internship, or does it have to deal with something you plan to do as a career? My g/f's getting it rough now, she's interning in Virginia (ironically where i'm from), and she doesn't care for it...well she doesn't care for the city life. I hope yours is easier (town wise).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. I hope it's real enjoyable, nothing like being stuck in an internship that you hate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fountain

Don't see a need for the expansion tag in the reception section. I'll help expand it, but it's fine without the tag. —Viriditas | Talk 08:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL

You should be proud. You got mentioned by name several times on that little rant. Means you are doing a good job.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't gone through the article in a detailed way since....well forever. I try and pay attention to what gets added, but I don't stop to read through it. Got too much other things to do. I have no problem if BOF is used as an external link, like IMDb or All Movies Guide, but not a source. I don't know where we are citing IMDb, and I thought we agree that we wouldn't cite Rory's Kiss because no one had officially announced it? See, I haven't read the page in so long I don't even remember what it says. lol. Interviews with BOF? No, because SHH gets personal interviews. Interviews are easily attributable, because the only thing you have to worry about is someone lying when they post it on BOF (which, I would only take interviews with the BOF webmaster, and not some random user that claims to have talked to someone). But, it doesn't help us if BOF only puts it on their front page and not it's own page like SHH does.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. I'm not sure what avenue to travel, we might want to consult an Admin about where to bring this too... but most likely we'll probably be directed to Wikipedia talk:External links. I would also bring light to the fact that they are basically petitioning each other to start anarchy over here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that the post before in that topic section was about being civil, and Jett was telling everyone to no longer be assholes. But then the very next post there's a line of people not only bashing something they have no understanding of, but pointing you out and attacking you. Then, they all have the balls to call us hypocrits.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Nice. I think you explained it rather well. I can't say that everyone will understand, because they see how horrible some articles (to them they don't see the problems, they just see the article) and they think that is how every article is. Because we are an "open" editing website, it brings the problem that people think they can do whatever they want, and they don't realize that there are still rules and guidelines that are supposed to govern our efforts. I think you did a good job explaining that you are simply following the restrictions set forth by Wikipedia, which are completely different than what goes on at BOF and other like websites. I did notice that when someone pointed out the argument you made (here) about not being able to link to a specific release, because it gets archived from the homepage, that Jettman still wrote off Wikipedia. I love the argument "there's tons of BS on that site". Well gee, who would have thought that when you have almost 2 million articles in one language that there could possibly be any BS there. Especially when you allow everyone to edit, without registering. From what I've seen, you are probably not going to get anywhere with this Jettman. You can show him where he's wrong in thinking that we have to use BOF, because of the damn websites own regulations (and not some personal vendetta of yours, mines or anyone elses), and it wouldn't make any difference. From reading through that forum, most (not all) come off as those little children who can't understand why they shouldn't have ice-cream right before dinner. So, instead of obeying they simply whine and threaten to give a tantrum (in this case, a full-on riot of Wikipedia and anything Batman related here).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a tale of two cities. They have their own community, and we are as ignorant to there rules as they are to ours. It doesn't make either side lesser, it just makes them different. I've been around countless new editors (myself included) that had no clue what Wikipedia really does, or how to operate on it. After a few months of helpful guidance from other editors, who point them in the right direction, they eventually understand. From what I've read over there, most (if not all) don't have a clue what really goes on over here. They don't know what Wikipedia is, or how it operates. It's hard to explain something to someone that doesn't care to learn, it's even hard to simply say "this is what is going on, and you have to deal". I "knew" about a lot of things on here in my early stage, but it took time and actual experience to allow me to fully comprehend what it all means. I still learn things today that I realize I didn't accurately understand before. So, if they never get it over there on BOF, it isn't the end of the world. I think you do an excellent job trying to educate them on how we operate here, and hopefully it will enlighten a few. What concerns me is the rabid actions of the other few who plan to "rewrite the article". Because if they even get 4 people to come over here, we're going to have a very big problem of "edit wars" and 3RR violations, at least that is what I forsee based on their comments.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And I quote "Erik, welcome to BOF. I'm sure once you've been on here for a while, you may be making the case to wiki, yourself".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the attributing of Jett to you coming over to BOF. He wrote as if Jett actually came to YOU here and said "hey, come over to BOF and let's talk this out". There's another new message, which does nothing but prove the ignorance behind the understanding of this site, about how it isn't encyclopedia driven because we have so much misinformation. The ignorance is that what we strive to do is not what is always happening. The fact that anyone can edit negates any "perfect" interpretation of Wiki policy and guidelines, and allows for these ridiculous edits that remove information and replace with propaganda. People see "encyclopedia" here and automatically assume that everything is supposed to be perfect, and when they see that it isn't they act all shocked. I'm sorry to say that so far, the BOF people (minus a couple that have shown some real intelligence, and frankly you bump that curve up now since you are a new member..lol) come across as possibly very young individuals who probably are not even out of high school.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been following. They have the circular logic of "well, we have quotes on the front page that prove it", or the "since we are always right, when Jett says 'this is true', that means we must be recognized". They keep dodging the question. I don't know how to take it. Kryptonsite is one that could be called into question, the only reason I put it above every other Smallville fansite is because no other fansite has ever had their webmaster requested to right official companion guides for the series. Craig Bryne (the webmaster) goes out to the set and interviews everyone, and has written 1 book (due in September) with another due a couple months after that. I think that's a clear case of the studio respecting his fansite enough to say "hey, come write for us". I haven't seen that with BOF (not saying that lack of that means anything), but if they could provide some proof that the studio actually recognizes their efforts and considers them the "TOP", then I think that would help us fight for their existence on the page. As for a "counter", it counts everyone over and over again, so if I visit the site 30 times in one day, it doesn't say I've only been there once, it says I've been there 30 times. Kind of like vote stacking. Where is this counter anyway?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that wouldn't hold up in a court of WikiLaw. On a side note, I've reworked the Spider-Man 2 critical section (which you may have noticed the comment on Alien's page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the links on that page would help us to establish its existence in the external links section. But I think it's best to use it like SHH, where we follow their links to the actual sources. If he can't provide a link, or does a "hush hush fellow in the studio", then we can't use it. It's plain and simple. We have to be able to verify what is reported, and if they do not want to help us in that endeavor then we can't use them in that respect. I think we have some good evidence to say "hey, we can include them as an external link, because...", but because of their layout, and occassionally not being able to release the identity of their contacts, we cannot use them as a "reliable source" (as defined by Wikipedia policy) to post information here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just say, if they can set it up so that we can link to a specific interview they conduct, to where we won't lose the link after 10 days, then it's fine. When it comes to first hand interviews, it isn't a case of SHH is better at it than BOF, it's a case of the website's layout and the ease of verifiability over a long term existence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it me, or is this guy taking this AfD way too personally? He's acting like Rod broke some cardinal rule that everyone knows, and that he did it with such contempt that he needs to be called out on it over and over again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fourth movies that may never get made

I think the safe bet is to do a proposal. This way people can't say "well you didn't let us know".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:RtP

I can't see anyting "missing", but I see plenty to clean up. But, you asked for missing, as I'm sure you're more than aware of what needs cleaning. I don't see anything major. I wouldn't say "expand this section" as I'm sure it's already in the back of your mind. I mean, there are plenty of tags on the article for that. Overall, I think it looks decent for just a days worth of work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Took only a brief glance, consider combining "Development" with "Writing" and "Filming" with "Cinematography", for a more fulfilling read. Alientraveller 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "Filming" and "Cimematography", and the idea behind both is similar, but not "development". You could probably remove the "development" title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I never really took the time out to view the film. I think I'll try to do that soon. If you can expand the "filming" and "cinemat" sections I think they'll be fine. If you put casting info in the "cast and characters" section, yeah I think it will be just fine. I don't think its too large to merge in the plot section, but again, if you put the casting info there then it's just as good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I love The Descent. I've been watching so many horror films since my childhood that it's hard to get me into any suspense, and that claustrophobia he created was intense. Even without the monsters he had a very suspenseful film. I love Dog Soldiers too, matter of fact, I recently watched both and when I get the time (in the next decade, because of all the Smallville and F13 work) I want to go through the commentaries and see about expanding the articles. Stupid school, why must we learn and get full time jobs...why can't someone pay us to work on Wikipedia. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think one skill I have learned to "master" (so to speak), is determing reliable sources. I have a far more critical eye now, than I did before, when I was writing research papers. I try to write them now, and I sit there and go "i would never use this on Wikipedia, why would I use it here".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I've found that all entertainment articles are pretty much looked down upon, and when one reaches FA status I like to think that's one more point on the board in our favor. Also, I think working on here helps one not only find reliable sources, but be able to pull relevant content from them a little better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Shawshank is more respected as a film than any Spider-Man, although I would love to have a Trilogy of FAs with all the Spidey films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I hope you enjoy it. Heck, I hope I enjoy it for having to sit there for over 3 hours.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am curious - do they also render sound effects (swords clashing, boats creaking) and just how do they caption love scenes? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't you linked the production notes? Alientraveller 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You already listed Empire's feature. All good then. I saw a bit of the movie on TV, very beautiful and cool: not cool like slick, but temperature and colour. I hope you get what I mean. Alientraveller 20:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing specific. I think all improvements will come after you expand the release section, and most likely any other sections that are thin will be filled in by the commentary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

Please write me off-list asap. An opportunity has presented itself for some insider info. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben Hur & Alientraveller

I agree that usually images on film pages shouldn't be popping everywhere. What I am describing here is the differences in versions of the released titles. They are very different and visual identification of each title is very useful; hence the images. Also, as I pointed out earlier the images are very small to offer less obtrusiveness. As for calling Alientraveller's edit vandalism and not in good faith; that was the logical conclusion when I asked for him stop the reverts and discuss; which he did not do. Thanks for your time. FrankWilliams 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree using vandal may have been harsh; but he still should have used the discussion pages. I'll change the wording in the article so it reflects the critical commentary point you're making. I really thing the image are good for the article which is always my interest. FrankWilliams 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding The Happening not being and Hindu-American film.

I do not know how to make citations, but here http://in.rediff.com/movies/2007/mar/15night.htm is the link that confirms that the Indian production company UTV is co-producing with 20th Century Fox to make this film.

Up is down

Oh I'll agree with you at how macabre it was: the sailor who got extreme frostbite and Sparrow's mum choked me up. I ranked it better as DMC because it did have more a point being the climax, (*cough*no cannibals*cough*) but as much as I love extended universe COTBP tops it for me being just an enjoyable ghost story. Alientraveller 07:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Up, up and away web

Actually, right now, I think it's easily GA. It's definitely not FA material, but GA's are for well written articles that still need work. I don't think anyone would find fault the quality of the article. As for casting, yeah we should look into that. We could put it with the "Cast and characters" section, this way if it isn't that much information it's still got a home.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we are dealing with all the films, we may want to limit it to what they win, otherwise the list will be ginormous. We could always create another subheading under "Development", something like "contracts" (or anything that conveys the same meaning) that details the contract issue (e.g. Dunst, Maguire, Franco = 3, Raimi only had a 1 picture deal initially, etc).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think for the "Film series" bit we can add some stuff on the production, given that is the ongoings of a film series, rather than a third-perspective reception. On another note, from the Making the Amazing DVD documentary for the second film, Laura Ziskin noted Raimi basically moved onto the second film right after the first was finished. Alientraveller 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Shawshank is something I've been meaning for one day. Schedule swamps though: Titanic is ten this year, so that'll be centre of my attention. I'll saw how you do your thang first, and I'll try to expand if necessary once I view the DVD. I certainly think it was subtitled, but don't take my word for it, I only viewed them a few years ago. Alientraveller 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for that. We can still include some book information if need be, and a small bit about the games, since they were technically adaptations of the films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ET

Well there's no way it'll reach June 11, but there is Halloween. Anyway, yeah, Tintin's ok, lead takes up too much though. Alientraveller 19:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot I did, a few I couldn't do. Alientraveller 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Did you take a degree in English btw? Or am I just Aspergerish with my writing? Alientraveller 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. Take your pick of either Spielberg or Rambaldi and their creation. Alientraveller 16:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you've got some of them, thanks very much. I'll try to find a balance, but like science-fiction films themselves, I try to connect themes and subtleties within the practical problems of creating an alien. I did consider a themes section actually but decided against it due to lack of material. Alientraveller 07:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, I see, I just assumed they were avaliable online. Sorry. Alientraveller 10:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you amigo. Alientraveller 13:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome to expand the themes section if you wish. I abide by WP:OWN. Alientraveller 15:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how you do though, if you have time away from the Road to Perdition. If you want you can bullet point the articles for me. Alientraveller 15:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you believe it? Alientraveller 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park franchise

The problem with Jurassic Park franchise is structuring it. Crichton wrote a script treatment in novel form that got snapped up by Spielberg, who in turn asked him to wrote another novel/treatment for the sequel. After that it was a film series that hit a wall making a fourth film. It can't be as conventional as Spider-Man film series. Alientraveller 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the article doesn't interest me being that my view is Crichton wrote script treatments, not books, and if it is just the films then count me out. ½ of a trilogy is not something I want to edit on. Alientraveller 20:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even a plot summary? LOL. Well I do love to work within guidelines as much as possible, so thank you for that compliment over my structuring. Alientraveller 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Aquaman and that other DC guy

Thanks for coming back to Aquaman, I was thinking everyone forgot about it..lol. Anyway, so I'm finally sitting down and watching (er..listening) the commentary for the Smallville pilot (and the second episode right after that) and I discovered something you'd appreciate. They actually subtitled their commentary, so it's much easier to follow and get things spelled correctly. I just thought that was nice, and that I'd share...you know...in case you suddenly develop a liking of Superman ..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm hoping Raul closes it soon. Not that I'm worried about people opposing it, but it really isn't getting any new traffic. Right now I'm working with a bunch of editors on a Television taskforce. We're hoping to curb this problem of episode articles that can never meet criteria for existence. It seems to be going well. We are trying to keep it in a close community until we can all agree on what would be considered fair. Then when we have it all set, we're going to notify the rest of the wiki community to get a broader opinion. This way we don't have 1000 hands in the cookie jar at the same time. Let me know when you put FC up for FAC. I don't think you'll have too much to worry about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

When do you intend to nominate Fight Club and The Fountain? Alientraveller 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen them, but from experience it generally stemmed from a lot of "well the other guy did it, so I will too". Also, people would set up parent articles (like "List of Lost episodes) in a manner that they could say "well, we can't put it there, because it wouldn't look right". There was already a guideline that said "only split if you need to", and people took that to mean if one needs to be split then they all should be split. It takes quite a bit of work to get an episode article to actually be good, because most don't have that much information available. I've done quite a bit of work on the Smallville pilot. If the LOST episodes are in that bad of shape then I'm sure they'll be address. You can see our discussion about what should be done to handle these episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that information for Smallville. I'll have to wait till at least tomorrow to check it all out (stupid paper that I stupidly did not write ahead of time). Bignole 19:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just got through the Animation Magazine information, great stuff..great find. It will probably be more helpful to the series page, but a few things will help on the season page (season 1 and 2 actually). How'd you come across this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I wasn't sure if you just happened to be reading some magazines and found a couple that talked about Smallville.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fountain

It's already four paragraphs though, how big do you want it to be? Aaron Bowen 00:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

30 days of invasion

I just watched the 30 Days of Night and The Invasion trailers, they both look pretty good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of The Invasion's Director. He's a German film maker, and I don't recognize the films listed on his page. I liked the 1978 version of the film, and parts of the 1993 version. We'll see, I guess. Lately, trailers have been letting me down. Usually there are a couple that get you in and the film's don't deliver, but there has been more of that lately (Spidey, Pirates). I can't view the "I am Legend" trailer. I keep getting some quicktime error, and I have no idea why. I have the latest version. I just have to wait till it's released somewhere else so I can view it there. Yeah, I want to see Ocean, might see it with my step-dad on Father's Day. I enjoyed 12, partially. I hated the fake lasers, I mean, come on. I've seen really low-budget films that did a better job, and that whole Julia Roberts look-a-like gag? Slap the audience in the face why don't they. But I did like how they actually got the egg, that was kind of cool, but the suspension of disbelief is stretch, because I'd never let that thing out of my sight..I don't care who's fighting. I'll have to check that "Hard Candy" film. Ellen Page playing a 14 year old girl, when she was 18? Hmmm, eh...Tom Welling was 24, pretending to be a 15/16 yr old Clark Kent in season 1 of Smallville...so I guess stranger things have happened.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys haven't seen Downfall? Cracking recreation. Alientraveller 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to see Brick. My movie collection, though vast, generally only grows based on older films, and I only rarely go the theater (don't like crowds). According to Bay, he's kept all the big action sequences out of the trailers. I mean, notice how we have never seen Megatron don't anything other than being frozen?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally got the trailer for I am Legend to download, you're right...nothing really there. It isn't due for awhile, so I guess they probably don't want to show too much. Looks kinda good, from the lack of anything that was there. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

But the issue here is that the information is relevant. Every bat movie has come out in June except this one.TheManWhoLaughs 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

OK, I've taken out a book, and wrote down page selections to make multiple citing easy, and I'm going to crack out a production section in my sandbox. The book focuses on how, not why Cameron did stuff, so if you do find citations for me, focus it on the writing, structure etc. Thanks. IMDb has a good news archive to flesh out the film's reception, so I may sandbox that too. Alientraveller 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Would IMDb be a reliable source for the beginning and end of the shoot? Alientraveller 12:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ker-rap, any ideas on using italics for both the film and the ship yet disambiguating them? Alientraveller 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, thanks, might be more useful for my Spielberg work. Nice touch, how many years does it go up to? Alientraveller 20:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. I don't link urls right? Still, *Borat voice* very nice, I like. Alientraveller 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, that's always a problem when you are making a film that has to entertain and enlighten. I recall seeing United 93 and coming out wondering what was the point: I felt like I saw a horror film. World Trade Center has more lasting value. I only have a paragraph on digital effects and editing left for Titanic, and I think I'll sandbox everything from cast, historical accuracy, themes, releases, soundtrack and reception. I already found a review that critcised it as a cash-in, contrary to what Cameron wanted, so that's interesting. Where do you think Historical accuracy can go? Under reception? Alientraveller 14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wanted

Yeah, it seems ok. So far the production section isn't too huge, so I don't think sub-sections are necessary, though it's up to you. Alientraveller 13:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there real significance to free running? It is a deviation from the book or anything? Alientraveller 13:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Did you see Nightwatch? It was fun. Alientraveller 14:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Sopranos series

I'd appreciate it if you gave your opinion for the deletion of List of deaths in The Sopranos series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Sopranos series. Thanks. :) The Filmaker 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Movies

Yeah, good so far, I added a bit. The current guidelines are good though, don't forget completely that they're worthwhile. Alientraveller 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Topic pulled out of my hat: do you want to see Rise of the Silver Surfer? For me, it's Surfy, Galactus and Doom, so I think I would. Alientraveller 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Elektra...no. Ghost Rider, it was better than his attempt with Daredevil, that's for sure. I've heard the rumor of the cloud isn't in fact a rumor, and there is that bit in the trailer that appears to be a huge cloud moving down to Earth. Then again, it could just be a cloud-ship, which transports Galactus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Empire says Galactus is all Mufasaish but squint your eyes and you will see a bit of his pharoah-like splendour. Yeah, Fantastic Four I didn't care for. Too much setting up of superpowers and not enough Doom. It's simply really: great villain = great story. Not here. So I hope this sequel fulfils that with Doom and the Cosmic lot. Alientraveller 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have high expectations for it either. It probably won't suck, b/c I didn't think the first one sucked, not like some other comic book films, but it won't be that great either. At least, I don't believe it will.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All that is from Find Articles right? Alientraveller 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we merge Wolverine? I mean, it hasn't got a director and Magneto is merged. Alientraveller 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned-up and merged. Alientraveller 15:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Holy rusted death lists, Batman!

LOL, not to my knowledge. If you look at that guys contribs, and follow them to the WikiProject for the EastEnders, he made a comment about "Bloody ridiculous, they are saying it's a copyright violation now". But seriously, go there, and also check out the author of that death/birth/marriage list. It's an administrator. Check out the AfD discussion at that WikiProject and look at what the Admin is saying. His name is like Anemi-something, I can't remember. But yeah, if you find a user box about that let me know. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Should I be worried?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the bike worries me that we are departing from the dark, and entering the campy. I mean, the bike looks cool, just out of place for the direction Nolan left us.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Most news organizations try to stick by the "only print what you can prove" motto, and it says to me that WB has yet to actually take responsibility for the marketing, contrary to what G4 apparently was reporting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I didn't see that. But I did explain my reasoning on the discussion page. --Jimbo Herndan 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Giant f***ing robots are coming!

I can almost imagine Soundwave being one: so he'd realistically have minions. But there is Tidal Wave. But I love Grimlock, Grimlock is something we need: an Autobot who isn't a goody-two-shoes. Man, why do I have to see Transformers on July 27? They're invading our world not Australia, then the USA, New Zealand, Canada and then the UK... When are you seeing it? Alientraveller 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I find this archive of message board posts by screenwriter Roberto Orci. Should I incorporate all this or leave it until the DVD to cut down on the references? Alientraveller 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

See Consensus - people agreeing are a consensus; not everyone has to bring something new to what it agreed, but everyone participating in the discussion ought to be allowed to have a view, even if it is simply to agree with someone else Stephenb (Talk) 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Themes

Thanks for the invite Erik, but I'm going off-line right now. I'll check in later and see what's up. —Viriditas | Talk 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that he is trying to make it so if a film scholar does not speak about a film's themes and style, then it shouldn't be FA status. But, in my opinion, it isn't about whether or not they should be speaking about it in those terms, but if they have or haven't. If they have, great. If they haven't, then it shouldn't be a deciding factor in an FAC. There are far too many films for scholars to talk about every one, and some were never intended to be looked at in that manner. Fight Club was meant to convey several messages, and had underlying tones. A slasher film isn't, it's about splattering guts and blood everywhere. Sure, someone could find a theme or symbolism in some of the character's actions, I think Arcayne did a good job of pointing one out in Part VII, but that doesn't mean that they actually have. I just don't like the idea that we would say a film can never reach FA status if film scholars don't write about it. I've never looked at FA status as meaning the subject of the article is something that could be put in the Library of Congress, which is what I'm taking he thinks these articles should be. Bignole 16:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, Adewit gave up. Still, his/her E.T. objection will provide practise for Titanic. Alientraveller 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

They seem to be getting rather personal with it. I don't know how many times they were basically talking down to me. They kept assuming things about my opinion as we discussed, but the second I do it they blow up at me. Bignole 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what you were saying about the Cineaste review, I think you have a point. Some reviewers are utter boors, who write to see how much they can cobble together and make themselves feel oh-so-witty, and who shouldn;t be allowed anywhere near a tv screen. If no one else is suggesting what they are, it is more reliable to go with the majority who say otherwise. Recently, in another article, I encountered an editor who felt very, very strongly that one reviewer's reputation should allow them to dismiss the larger portion of other, perhaps less-touted reviewers who saw a film in another way than the single reviewer. We always run the risk of injecting ourselves into our articles if we decide ahead of time which source voice is going to receive more play than others (outside of the application of RS and V). We may not see the incest facet of American Beauty, but I don't think it's our call to dismiss it unless it fails the Wiki standards litmus. If the review is credible and from a reliable source, and is not contraverted by an overwhelming number of others, it should go in. The reader is left with the final responsibility to decide if it has merit or not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the supposed hole in ET? Let me know what you find in Dark City and Shawshank, as I am interested in both of those films. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't in total disagreement with him either. I have no doubt that most films will need to cover that information, butt here are so many others, though in the minority, that won't have that information coverage. I just don't think it should be held against the article being FA if everything else is "perfect". Like I said, it shouldn't be a film's fault that it just wasn't made to be thematically proactive, or that it's part of a genre or series that people don't really care enough about to write anything other than "same ol' tireless crap, just like the other". I have no doubt most of those FA films currently need those sections, like you've pointed out when you went through them. Bignole 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth

I see that you have contributed to this article, do you know where the source for this quote might be found?

Guillermo Navarro, the director of photography, said that "after doing work in Hollywood on other movies and with other directors, working in our original language in different scenery brings me back to the original reasons I wanted to make movies, which is basically to tell stories with complete freedom and to let the visuals really contribute to the telling of the story."

Thanks. Atropos 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Atropos 19:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be really great. I'm going to start writing a production section soon, which is the only thing its really missing. Atropos 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Repoed my dance moves

Um...there doesn't seem to be enough information there to hold a page. There's less there than Spider-Man 4. It seems more like they are all signing contracts but thing has actually been started. Bignole 03:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm at my parents house (been here since Friday). Not only am I barely on the computer while I'm here, there's is extremely slow. I actually hate being on a computer when I try to use there's. Mine's all "zip zip zip", and there's is all "poke.......poke......poke". Anyway, If anyone's reading this beyond Erik, and is going to send me a message I'll be in the air (having my brain crushed by gravity) and will not be home till 3pm EST. Bignole 09:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies

Thanks for the assist. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

about 10 pounds of Crazy in a 5-pound bag. Going on vacationnext month, and just working while firming up my plans. Getting ready to move into my new place (closer to work), making the world safe for stupid people to continue rebuilding in areas prone to disasters. How about you?

Also, what to do if BigDaddy does nothing? Is there some sort fo timetable involved? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

BoF

I'm touched, they care. :) Since you're registered you can pass on the note that their thoughts keep me up at night, I have horrible nightmares over the opinions of BoF members..lol. Anyway, yeah...that user will break the 3RR first...and if he does I won't worry about changing it back. Someone else will. You see he removed the citation, since it didn't agree with what he was putting in? Bignole 01:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally got to the bottom of the thread, thanks for the support. By far, my favorite is "DOWN WITH BIGNOLE!". LMAO. It's like I'm a government and they are going to overthrow me. Bignole 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen Questions

Hey, it looks like you reverted one of my recent edits to the Watchmen(film) page. Now, I'm not trying to argue with what you did, because you're obviously a very experienced contributor to this site, while I'm still relatively new. However, since it looks like your basis for removal were the sources I cited I was just curious what exactly qualifies as a good source for this sort of information in a wiki article? I realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so we shouldn't just toss out every rumor that comes our way, yet on a film such as this, that's still a year or more away from release, pretty much any casting information (other than Gerard Butler since that came straight from the director) is speculation to some extent. Do we have to wait for the actor or director to confirm it themselves or are there any online sources that are considered trustworthy enough to cite on Wikipedia? Also, what in particular did you object to about the comment on Cusack? I wasn't trying to make it sound like he had been offered a part, just that he had expressed his interest in joining the film. The man says this himself in the on the page I linked to. I thought this would be acceptable since no one has removed the item on Cruise, which more or less said that he at one point was interested in being in the film. Also if you are an avid Watchmen fan I expect that you are aware with Jude Law's enthusiasm for the material, and the fact that he even has a tattoo of Rorschach. He has also expressed an interest in portraying Ozymandias, and at this point seems much more likely to than Cruise, considering the CHUD link. Is there any specific reason why, if I could find a credible enough source, the information about Law couldn't be added alongside the Cruise statement? Thanks for the help. I just want to make sure, since I am still relatively new, that I don't make the same sort of mistakes editing pages in the future.

Also is this the best place for me to ask questions like these?

Aurum ore 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, that pretty much answered everything I needed.

Aurum ore 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential name issue

I thought you might want to know and bring it up with this editor if there are any potential problems: User:Erik the Appreciator. Alientraveller 13:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yo, Joe!

Eh, just wondering about the handle.

Good luck with G.I. Joe. Mind, a film adaptation with Action Man sounds weird. I mean, why take out the likes of Snake Eyes and Cobra Command and then stuff in another fictional universe for no other reason than economy? Thank Hasbro DeSanto and Murphy were there to keep DiBonaventura in check on Transformers. But I shouldn't really say anything, because I know so little of the Joes: couldn't even get into their crossovers with the Transformers. I'd like an Action Man movie myself, plus Captain Scarlet. Thunderbirds would be cool... oh wait. Alientraveller 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I dawdled. Variety is ok for me. Alientraveller 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Road to Perdition

It's looking pretty good, I'd say you can at least nominate for GA at this point. The Filmaker 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why DharmaFlix links are labelled spam

Hi Erik. You deleted links to film content pages on our new wiki which emphasizes the Buddhist content in various films. Not sure why. Clearly you consider it some kind of spam. I have read the various requirements for external links and don't see how we have violated them. Our site is not for profit and is a community service for the worldwide Buddhist community. The links in question went to content directly related to the films. You might consider the kind comments from Buddhist practitioners and teachers listed at: DharmaflixWiki:Community_Portal. We are very inspired by the success of Wikipedia and appreciate the fine film reviews that you and others have produced here. However, our interest is to highlight Buddhist themes or Buddhist flavors in film for the purpose of teaching people about Buddhist dharma, that is, Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist states of consciousness. I am not sure what your criteria is for deciding to leave IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes on The Matrix page (when they are sort of boring), and take us off the page, when we had over 100 hits from the Matrix page in 3 days from people who care about how Buddhist philosophy deeply informs The Matrix, for example. I can see that on some films that we believe are flavored with Buddhist content, it may seem too much a stretch to include a link to the page on our site on that film, but Spiritual Films, The Matrix films, Kundun, Crouching Tiger..., and on and on clearly have Buddhist content. Again, our site is purely for educational purposes and I believe you do a very large community of Buddhist practitioners a disservice by indiscriminately removing links. Thanks for your careful consideration of this. Bruce

Zentek

Thanks for responding to my question about the exclusion of DharmaFlix review links from the film review pages on Wikipedia. First let me say I understand completely that Wikipedia is not a link farm and support you completely in your efforts to make sure the content of the encyclopedia is not diluted. However I would hope for your reconsideration of the exclusion of DharmaFlix for the following reasons.

1. We have film reviews. You say that All Movie Database or Metacritic are included because they have "aggregated film reviews". Well DharmaFlix aggregates film reviews as well. Granted the film reviews are aggregated on the basis of a discussion of Buddhist content in the films, but this is precisely the supplemental content, the informational "value add", what makes a contribution to knowledge about the film.
2. Out of the universe of films, the proportion of films covered by DharmaFlix will be very small, so there is no question of some kind of solicitation across a large number of multiple articles. The very limitation on this number also points, in information theoretic terms, to the level of information content being added by the links. Also if you will notice, many of the films, Kundun, for example, still have not yet been fully developed as articles, and so could benefit from being linked to a site that specializes in Buddhist films. We are also considering encouraging our users to participate in helping to write the reviews in Wikipedia on Buddhist films that languish, like "Kundun".
3. You suggest that our few links should not be allowed "since there is an interest in making it more prominent through Wikipedia." I respectfully submit that there is no way for you to know our intentions, except perhaps to ask us. Rather you project our intentions, which if I may make a Buddhist psychological point, shows more about yourself than about us. Forgive me if that seems disputatious. If you want to know what we care about, it is simple, we care about how certain films that have created a sort of mythological subtext of our lives (ex. Star Wars, Matrix, many Star Trek episodes) when reflected upon, reveal that that subtext is Buddhist. What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief, Buddhism is not a religion, and cannot really be defined. "Buddha" means "enlightened one". It's a funky term "Buddha" so if it's not scientific, it must be religious, or so the common thinking seems to go. The purpose of DharmaFlix is precisely to create a loosening of the concepts and preconceptions that make an experience of enlightenment unlikely. It is hoped that the experience of the intersection of these films will open the mind, raise consciousness, if you will. This is important information relevant to the specific films we are concerned with and so we feel it would materially contribute to include pointers to this information on Wikipedia.
4. You suggest our film review pages "violate the rich media standard of an external link, with several types of embedded rich media that pop up.". Generally speaking, we link to Youtube or Google video for trailers, etc, and use frames. Occasionally content in a frame may seem to "pop up", but this is highly unusual, and not on any of the pages linked to from Wikipedia. So I don't see how we have any embedded rich media. Obviously this objection must be considered on a case by case basis to see if our film review page does include rich media. I don't think the objection justifies wholesale elimination of links to relevant pages on our site.

This has already taken a lot of energy. Perhaps we could reach a compromise and you or your staff could just consider links to our review pages, as users post them, on a case by case basis, instead of making a wholesale judgement that the links represent linkspam. Thanks so much for considering all this. I know it takes a lot of energy on your part as well.

Zentek

AFD

I agree with you that a statement of my rationale should be sufficient, but I've had AFDs that ended no consensus with the closing admin pointing to a single statement from a keeper and saying it wasn't refuted. Kind of a damned if you do, or don't proposition. Say too much and it stalemates. Say too little and it still stalemates. Otto4711 12:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc

The article's not a bad one by any means, and a majority has to do with adaptations and portrayals in art, film, etc, which is too lengthy to belong in the parent article. It's that bloated "Joan of Arc in popular culture" section, like you said. This is a difficult one, but I do agree with you that with the current backlash against ...in popular culture articles, something needs to be done. It'll just encourage the trivia-lovers. Did you see this comment on the talk page? If an admin believes the article has gotten out of hand, then there's a good reason to be concerned. Perhaps you should contact User:Mangojuice and see if they ever listed it at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. María (críticame) 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that why they started Wikiquote? Here, children, here's a sandbox for you to play in, typos and all... ;) María (críticame) 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My fealing on the Joan of Arc article is that (1) it already says its not an exhaustive list, so the pop culture stuff can be trimmed to the more important ones, and (2) a lot of the pop culture stuff are not depictions of Joan of Arc but rather things loosely connected or inspired by the story, which is different. And yeah, it needs to be referenced, but a cynic might point out that we don't really have references for any of the list contents, not just the IPC stuff: an IMDB link is not a reference supporting a connection to Joan of Arc, and a lot of the art & opera entries aren't sourced at all. But the lead mentions some compiled lists of works depicting Joan of Arc, so maybe that list can be used as a reference, which surely wouldn't cover the recent video games, so I think this approach is correct. (And no, I never did list at WP:FARC, precisely because I figured someone might be interested in fixing it up. But if this really should be a featured list, it needs to be much better sourced than it is.) Mangojuice^talk 12:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice above, but reliable sources will be difficult on some of these things. I think you made a great start trimming some of the unnecessaries; I wouldn't have been as kind, however. I'm surprised no one has put in their own opinion, it being featured and everything...? Despite lack of feedback from others, however, I believe you made a good first step, and losing a few extra trivial bits in addition wouldn't hurt. Take care, María (críticame) 22:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Midnight oil

I believe it went alright. I got a 97 on the first one I had to write for this class, so I assume I'll probably (unless I completely screwed it up) get about the same grade on this one. I didn't even start writing the bulk of it till after Mythbusters was over last night. Thankfully, though unfortunate to a point because I liked the class, I had my last class meeting this morning. Now, I just have to take 6 online quizes for the class and I'll be finished. Aren't you just lucky you have nothing to do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, I'm sure you're just basking in the rays of halogen bulbs, ticking away at the computer with not a care in the world. ;) lol. That's cool you like the internship. I have start some volunteer service for one of my classes soon, so I'll be devoting some time to Hospice throughout the next month.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I bet you have secret compartments that hide all your non-work material. lol. I work for the state (currently at now) and I can't access a lot of sites. It's easier for me to find a physical book and use that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Midnight Oil? liek, omg, i just luv that group!!!!kkkkkk, they are liek totally teh bommb!
(heh) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly did not know there was a band called that. Good to know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

You could just scour sites like Superherohype, IGN and Rotten Tomatoes like I do. Alientraveller 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

hey

The website is verifiable he is in the movie quit changing it.TheManWhoLaughs 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The scarecrow one maybe but Jackson is confirmed now.TheManWhoLaughs 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Attribution problems

It's not verifiable right now, but I always thought Scarecrow would be a nice beginning to show how Batman's skills have improved to taking done a previous villain in seconds. I don't mind Sam Jackson either as Nick Fury. Alas, the life we chose... Alientraveller 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be awesome if Nolan did that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I had the page semi-protected (which the resulting Admin put in place for 7 days). Maybe by that time we'll have something concrete to put up one way or the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

IP @ Watchmen

I left him a talk page welcome, asking him to Register, and apologizing for any biteyness. I think both his points were valid for discussion, and we could use a guy like that.ThuranX 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne & ThuranX

Hi Erik. Regarding my troubles with Arcayne, they've been building for a long time. His comments, like that GIPU one, are exactly the sort of problem that i've been seeing in his editing style. He comes in, makes a flip remark, then follows with something like the 5 Pillars link. What he's doing is entering cocky, offering 'The Only Solution', and expecting praise. I spoke to him when he first arrived about his style, and he slowed it for a while, then resumed. The antagonistic aspects of such interactions seems to attract him, as evidenced by his recent interactions with Duhman009. I could go back to the beginning and find more, but ultimately, he's got a poor means of interaction with others. In the same time that I'm making clear my distaste for his poor behavior, I'm also working well with Tenebrae on Captain America, and with other editors elsewhere and regularly. I left a long note for the IP at watchmen, as mentioned above, and so on. I'm not having a general wiki-problem for which a wikibreak would be a remedy, but am just tired of watching him do this thing over and over. ThuranX 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's had the last word at my talk page, so let's hope that this puts the end to things. ThuranX 03:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I think you had that, but that's okay, i's your talk page. Hopefully at some point, you will realize that I was in your corner, when you had few enough folk there. Biting the hand that defends you seemed incomprehensible to me. I think i explained that on your Talk page as well. I guess that's that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

who

dont my friend who dont?TheManWhoLaughs 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Spidey 3 images

I noticed your comment on the FAC: what do you think would be better? I mean we got the black Spider-Man in the poster, and we got images for Harry and Eddie, the film's main villains, and a nice Sandman picture to illustrate a discussion of visual effects. Alientraveller 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the current Sandman picture as it's so bang on. But I suppose when the DVD comes, images will be flying all over the net. When the DVD comes, I can use it to shorten refs and expand context, as pre-release they're trying to be as tight-lipped as possible. Alientraveller 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That book is fantastic from what I've heard, and I have flipped through the previous making-of books in my shop. But knowing my library, it'll be a while. Alientraveller 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is probably unrelated to whatever it is you guys are talking about, but I photographed the Spiderman 3 premiere in Queens, if any of those pictures are useful for either of you: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Spiderman_3 --David Shankbone 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP Chi alive and kicking

We have found some Chicago information for the Batman Begins article. I just posted an edit citing Chicago as the location of the Wayne Corp. building. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise, use your witch magic

You probably saw this already, but just in case I figured I'd send it over. Apparently they are banning some filming of Valkyrie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, should have checked the page first, it appears someone took care of it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the country that elected Hitler Chancellor would be more welcoming to the director of Apt Pupil and two X-Men films. Guess not. Alientraveller 11:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No no...I think they love Singer, just not Cruise. They don't recognize Scientology as a religion. I think they think of it as a cult (*cough*they're right*cough*)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Linkspam and eggs, Eggs and Linkspam, Linkspam Linkspam and Eggs....

What is it is used for? I went to it, but it didn't appear to be much interesting. Is it something someone was adding to a bunch of articles?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Marvel is linkspam? Which major entertainment company are we talking about? Alientraveller 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I definitely wouldn't put them in an EL section, and I can't see where they would be justified in being in anyone's EL section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Apoc. Now AFD

Yeah, you would think so, but it was just that sort of joking that led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture getting the article kept around for an extra five months. Otto4711 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh

I thought it might work, but Olyphants bald head from the trailer just isn't working for me. Of the few instances when I've played Hitman, or watched others, he just isn't getting me to see the spirit of Agent 47 in him. The character is supposed to be older, for starts, but that's easily ignorable if they find someone that fits the part. I don't know if he does.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Power of Nightmares

I don't think I'll be able to execute your Peer Review suggestion for The Power of Nightmares's reaction section due to a lack of "international" commentary outside the United States. All I've been able to find so far are these two pieces, one of which probably isn't even a reliable source anyway. Any suggestions? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Spider-man

The issue was that most of the coverage happens in the film series article and just one para (though pertaining to film 1) is in the film 1 article. Usually when i use further reading, it is to provide in-depth information. Instead, you could have just added a summary sentence in the series article. Also, in the first film, there is no data prior to 1999 where infact you could have added a sentence summarizing the main events that happened earlier.

As it currently stands, it looks that there were x paras of which (x-1) paras were put in the series article and one para in the film 1 article and hence my comment. I hope you understood my comment. --Kalyan 11:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)