User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 5

Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 05:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD of 22-7

Hello, would you happen to have agree to my comment here? If not, I'll just start up a new AFD, no worries. Just wondering if we can keep them all in one place. Happy editing. Someguy1221 06:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just go on and do it yourself; I'm in the middle of a larger set of edits (which is how I found this). Girolamo Savonarola 06:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't create this this didn't reahc my criteria ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War films task force

I'm not quite sure what procedure you guys have in place for discussing things like this, so I'll just pose the question here in hopes that you can direct me to the proper place.

WP:MILHIST, having decided some time ago to consider cultural depictions of warfare as being in-scope, is currently preparing to set up a "War films task force". Would the Films WikiProject have any objections to operating it as a joint task force between the two projects (cf. WP:MILAIR)? Thanks! Kirill 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be an excellent idea from several angles: the MilHist project members kick ass organization-wise, and it would probably be a shining example for WP Films of what a task force can aspire to. Second, it would be good to incorporate a task force which is not focused on national cinema. Third, since I've been modeling a large part of recent restructuring of WP Films on the MilHist example, it allows some crossover, which means that any advice MilHist may want to impart to Films now would be directly pertinent. (And I personally am happy to welcome any such advice.)

My only condition is as follows: that the task force itself be physically located as a subpage within WP Films. This makes sense to me as the subjects are fundamentally films above all else. Would that be acceptable? Girolamo Savonarola 01:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with that; it's worked sufficiently well in the case of our Korean task force, for example. If possible, I'd prefer that the page start off from the MILHIST task force boilerplate—we have a lot of it, and I suspect Films doesn't yet—which will give it some standard infrastructure that our task forces all have, e.g. an open task template, transcluded assessment statistics, etc. (Please feel free to borrow that boilerplate for your own use, incidentally.) Kirill 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the boilerplate, that's exactly what I'm talking about! :) Bring all the infrastructure greatness on. Girolamo Savonarola 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do then. If you'd like to take a look at some of the boilerplate we use, you can poke around Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Handbook; you'll probably have to make some changes to get it to work for you generally (e.g. you have importance ratings which will need categories, while we don't), but much of it should be applicable merely by changing "Military history" to "Films". Kirill 02:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: as per the text in both MilHist and Films, task forces have to be formally proposed first. I don't much mind if this proposing is done at MilHist or Films, so long as each project is informed of it. Although I'm certain there are lots of editors on both side who would chomp at the bit for this task force, it's important that we follow the process, so as to avoid the appearance that it's okay to spontaneously create task forces. (I'm not implying that you were going to do this, but just wanted to cover my bases.) Girolamo Savonarola 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you insist... ;-)

It's already been proposed, as such, in MILHIST (and convention has been that the project coordinators can "speedy" approve non-controversial ones in any case); so the Films proposal is the only one remaining.

I'll go ahead and implement the time-consuming parts of the infrastructure building, but will refrain from announcing the task force until Films has had an opportunity to discuss it. Kirill 02:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. (We're trying to get a coordinator election out the door shortly...) I'm probably about to start a spat of article tagging (for other task forces! :) ); would you mind making the discussion announcement on the WP Films talk page? A simple link I'm certain will be fine - no need to have two going in parallel. Thanks much, Kirill! Girolamo Savonarola 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. If you're interested in peeking at the infrastructure as it comes together, incidentally, it's shaping up here. I have fairly little idea as to how your banner works, though, so you'll need to add in the correct tagging syntax. Kirill 02:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The boilerplate work is now done, at least from the MILHIST side; hooking up from the Films side will require, at a minimum, a banner change and the creation of importance categories.

In any case, I'll wait for feedback from the project before doing anything further. Kirill 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I've already put in a request at Template talk:Film for what I believe are the necessary edits to change the banner. Girolamo Savonarola 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that should be done. The parameter is |War-task-force=yes. Girolamo Savonarola 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

I definately agree. Of course we strongly agreed before we wouldnt want to see 1971 Brazilian comedy drama films for example!! but I definately think by decade is the way to go especially as the stub categories for the primary genres have gone this way. This would need a full discussion and then cooperation to implement it together later. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have some comments, but let's talk at the Cat Dept, so that everyone can participate. Whatever is decided, it shouldn't be a back-room deal. Girolamo Savonarola 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK . Have you made any progess yet in trying to get the Indian cinema group to be part of WP Films. It would make much more sense to have them as a task force. However many films they have most haven't been assessed and should really be regarded as within our territory. From what several editors such as Shahid and Pa tell me most of the apparently long list of Indian cinema members have either left wikipedia or no longer contribute very actively and it is only about five people who are working. This I feel could help our cause. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I was wondering if you'd like to liaise for that - I would definitely like to get them integrated fully into our structure, but due to background issues, I'd rather not rehash the same arguments myself. If there are two or three of the active editors who are supporting this, then the best thing would be for this to be proposed at the INCINE talk page and get their consent on the record. That way we have transparency for our actions. Girolamo Savonarola 18:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films roll call

Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!

An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Lapse

What is wrong with having a few links up there? Have you actually looked at the links that you keep removing? I don't think any of them violate "the rules". I think it would be good for a page about time lapse photography to have to links to some examples of time lapse photography, don't you think? Oh and just to clarify, I am not adding the links, merely undoing the removal.

It clearly violates major parts of WP:EL. If you have any specific objections to particular links, then please make them known through the article discussion page, but otherwise I'm going to call it spam, as per our rules and revert it on those grounds. Girolamo Savonarola 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Coordinator

I'll have to review the responsibilities of this position; I am not sure if I have the time to take in such as a role, as my contributions fluctuate with my academic priorities. I was actually considering starting a science fiction film task force, so I may need to compare these two roles to see what would be most preferred, if either at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of the main responsibilities would be the maintenance of the task forces, so that might dovetail nicely. As for real-world priorities, I absolutely understand, but on the other hand, this is a large reason why there are going to be several positions - redundancy. At the moment I have more free time that I usually do, but when I start working on-set, it sometimes can be as intense as 16 hrs/day for six days a week. At the end of the day, it's a housekeeping position, so it's not the end of the world - we just try to divide tasks up as best as we can, given people's fluxuating schedules. And as a wiki, there are always going to be open tasks. Girolamo Savonarola 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of all the responsibilities for the coordinators, or is it unestablished at the moment? I kind of fall in with Erik that our school priorities always take precendence, and they can occasionally take up a huge portion or our free time. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the page. Eh, upon looking at it, I'd have to say "no". Based on my current schedule, and what would probably be my schedule for awhile, it will be too much. It's kind of the reason I wouldn't want to be an Administrator, because it seems that if I performed the Coordinator's job thoroughly, that time devoted to cleaning up the articles themselves would be severly diminished. Not saying that I won't keep an eye on things, and lend my voice when needed, but that right now, my focus is on cleaning up the articles whenever I have the time. I will add that I appreciate the vote of confidence from you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably add my name soon, and like the above editors, school is going to be tough this year, so it may interfere at various points throughout the year. However, I'm usually checking my watchlist and the project as whole multiple times throughout the day, so I'll probably add my name in the next day or so. By the way, has the film banner been fixed to readd the classes for disambig, list, etc. to another category? Because right now the unassessed articles is mostly made up of the extra classes for our project. Just curious, since I want to bring that down to 0 as soon as possible. --Nehrams2020 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the banner code goes, I noticed that as well. I'm not certain why it's doing that, since the categorization switch parser should be sorting them otherwise. I'll have another look shortly. Girolamo Savonarola 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating AfD procedures

Please do not move old AfD discussions as you did here. If a previous AfD discussion exists, name the new one Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Article title (2nd nomination). If you have questions about how to do this, please let me know and I'll be glad to assist you. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the corrected location, just in case you need one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Film

It seems the problem is that Template:Film/Task force categories hasn't been updated. --MZMcBride 04:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to be out for a while; too tired to continue editing. As far as I can see, the problem is that Template:Film/Task force categories doesn't have an importance parameter, so that can never be defined when Template:Film/Task force categories is called inside Template:Film. To test any changes, you'll have to find / replace all instances of Template:Film/Task force categories to a second template sandbox. If you can't figure out, I'm always around. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film/Task force categories is an entirely different template in the eyes of the software. If you test your code, it will use Template:Film/Task force categories because it says things like {{!}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/War films task force|War films task force]]<includeonly>{{Film/Task force categories|name=War films|class={{{class|}}}|importance={{{importance|}}}}}</includeonly>. It's putting the importance parameter into "{{Film/Task force categories", however, Template:Film/Task force categories hasn't been updated to include that particular parameter. It would be like trying to use |Seussian-task-force= in Template:Film without updating Template:Film to tell it that it should include Seussian-task-force. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nehrams2020 RfA Thanks

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully with unanimous support. I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and vote and I can't wait to learn the new tools and further immerse myself into Wikipedia! Please don't hesitate to point out any errors I make so I can prevent them from occurring again. I'm always here to help, so if you ever need anything, just let me know. Also, thanks to Wizardman for nominating me and for guiding many other editors to become admins. By the way, I hope that we can get another couple people to get in on the coordinator positions, it looks a little bare right now. I'll make sure that I include a message in the newsletter for members to include themselves in the elections. How goes the film banner? Again, thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Coordinator election advice wanted

I think your idea is a good one; hold the election but allow new candidates up to the end. Simply foregoing the election might be workable, but I'd avoid it; if nobody even shows up to vote, that may be a sign that the project doesn't feel the coordinator positions are necessary right now.

(The first time you do something like this is always a bit chaotic, but if the position works out, you should have no trouble getting candidates the next time around.) Kirill 01:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me, I was surprised there weren't other people that were interested. I'll make sure I make mention of it in the newsletter so any other possible members can run if they want. --Nehrams2020 03:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me aswell. The more candidates we have, the fairer it will be. - • The Giant Puffin • 07:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian film

Is this a huge coincidence or did you know about my recent edits?? Hi Giro. I've just actually been clearing up the Indian cinema page by tidying and splitting and creating a tidier notepad for articles that require more attention. In doing so I strongly agree with you India shouldn't be any different from any of the other groups and should be under WP:Films -it has gone on too long in neglect. It is quite poorly organized and could really do with our TLC if you know what I mean. Now I do think we should keep the Indian wikiproject template to show it is part of both but I'll speak to some of the active editors now. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me the ideal page you want it moved too and I'll see what some of the opinions are. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have complete support from the most active emembers of the group most of the others have left. How would we create the tag for Indian film related articles though? The WP India banner already has the Indian cinema group in it . PLease respond to me on this thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK the issue between WP India and WP Film banners will need clarifying this can be sorted in the coming days. I am going to merge the project to the proposed page above if you don't have any objections . I wouldn't want to shoot off the WP INdia banner though. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll move back until it is sorted with the banners . If you could deal with this it would be great ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather it moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema or Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema work group. I don't like the "task force" naming it sounds like a branch of the post office. Any idea when you can sort the banner? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The banner issue has to do with code portability amongst other things, and I've been consulting others more experienced in both the technical matters as well as the implications. It's just going to take some time, which is fine. There is absolutely no need to rush this (or most anything else) through. Things like moves and categories aren't minor edits and require considerable effort to fix if done incorrectly, so it's important to do it right the first time around. (See WP:BOLD.) As for task force vs work group, I don't really have a preference, but as it isn't an easy thing to correct - as I've just mentioned - I'm loathe to rename it for purely cosmetic reasons; it would require extensive reworking of categories, assessment, and the template. It's not really important either; the use of task force or work group is equivalent. Girolamo Savonarola 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see. I know all that - this is what I told the Indian cinema group about the benefits of better organization etc. All that needs doing is to organize a banner and make sure it is agreed on first time without any issues to contend with after. While it doens't have to be done today I do feel that it has been sepearate for far too long and should be merged as asoon as possible . Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I'll see what can be cooked up. (And just so's ya know's - the message on your talk page was a response to the comments above it, not to you.) Girolamo Savonarola 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis ahhhh!! Somebody has ruined Category:Australian films by splitting into the worst possible by genre ahhhh .What should we do. This definately MUST NOT be done. Category:Austrlaian films should be an A-Z ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it when somebody tried to alter the Category:American films you repsonded immediately but when somebody messes up Category:Australian films you haven't said a thing. Its very difficult to find anything in it split by genre. Do you have anything to say about it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no conspiracy - I simply had forgotten about it. Is there a central discussion already ongoing? What's the status of all this? Girolamo Savonarola 19:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film template Request

Put exactly what you want on a subpage somewhere, tell me where it is and I'll make the change. It's too high-profile a template to unprotect it temporarily, which is what I'd normally do. Neil ム 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, done :) Neil ム 17:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of late reply

Please see here. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film festival task force

Thanks for your support! Is it possible to simply move User:Wisekwai/Film festival task force into the project space? Also, do you know anything about finding a bot to tag the articles? Please, take your time on this. I'm in no urgent rush, but am nonetheless eager. — WiseKwai 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyhood

This project I came across made my head asplode! It's "technically" in production, yet it won't be released until 2013 or 2014. What do you think of that?! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that's nothing. See Dimension (disambiguation). Girolamo Savonarola 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, you got me there. :) These films are special cases, indeed. Makes me wonder if insurance is ridiculously high and contractual obligations ridiculously complicated for either of them. (Sorry, didn't realize you responded here.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian films

See Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. There is some confrontation that Category:Australian films is not part of WP Films. I believe it should have been discussed between both projects before large scale changes are made -as you said before efficiency is the key. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment inviting their participation in dialogue at the Categorization department's talk page. Let's see what happens. Girolamo Savonarola 15:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. The thing is whilst the main Category:Australian films should remain intact I do see the idea of by genre also. Category:Comedy films and Category:Drama films in my view should indeed be split but I was thinking in terms of by decade and not by country. However if we did indeed split it like Category:Australian comedy films, Austrian comedy films etc it would kill two birds with one stone I think. The problem is that many films are often in several genres which makes the system more confusing and I really think they should be kept as simplified as possible learning from our past discussions ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The real problem is no so much the categories themselves as it is the articles - a genre bending film co-produced by two or three countries could have enough categories to choke a donkey. I agree with you that by date is probably the least controversial method, though. The category intersection project is taking longer than I thought, unfortunately... Girolamo Savonarola 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I completely agree as I've just stated on the project page. It might be tomorrow or a few days befire we get some real response as in Australia its now night time. There are so many issues that need addressing -the Indian cinema thing included that it can get a bit headachy!! All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you might as well just take the discussion regarding the Indian thing and put it on the IndCine talk page - if there's no further discussion in the next few days, then that can stand as is as consensus, and we can finally make the move. As far as the template issues, I'll leave them with their stats and we'll do our own. (MilHist is already doing the same with our mutual task force - they pull from the same category structure, but what each project does with it after that is up to their own discretion.) Girolamo Savonarola 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response -I've moved the previous conversation to the Indian cinema talk page where the consensus seems apparent. If nobody objects in a few days then we clearly have the go ahead as there is so much support by its most active members. Sometimes indian cinema as an individual project is like a ghost town -far better to merge and have our benefits of better organization. Best regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What appears to cause conflict nearly every time is where projects overlap !! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, differing project priorities and people like to protect their interests (and those of the editors they work with). This is exactly why one shouldn't go around shouting out your prior edit history in an argument, as has been done here - it's not an answer to the problem at hand. And no one was questioning his skill as an editor - it's the actions which are in question. Girolamo Savonarola 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Some of the comments and actions at User talk:Freakofnurture are quite unpleasant indeed and our project is quite clearly disrespected if you see it and we are made to look quite foolish. E.g "I would generally have more confidence in a discussion at CFD than on the talk page of a specific (and daresay cliquish?) wiki-project".

Depsite efforts to try to get them to wait until we reach a conclusion many of the earlier edits appear to have been reverted again and the sub categories re established ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what happens in discussion. If they refuse to convene, then you can WP:ANI it. In the meantime, we could probably use an RfC alert (I'll get on it), in order to advertise the discussion. It's more important that we hammer it all out in discussion, really. After that, then whatever is decided can be implemented with the weight of a consensus on the matter. Girolamo Savonarola 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I think its important to state that I had thought once the issues had been noticed I did not endorse the continued reverting. My whole motivation to even alert others was that seeing gutting categories and then speedy delete is simply not on. I have seen inter project issues before and this is a classic example of where if wikipedia had some clear policies or guidelines a lot less of this would have happened. My sincerest apologies on my part if I have insinuated anything untoward in your direction - somehow others have stepped in and gone way beyond what I would have done myself. My comment at freak's talk about moving from one project noticeboard to another stands though - it would have been good to have continued the discussion at the project which it is concerned - cheers Satu Suro 00:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I'm not assuming any bad faith; I just wanted to clear the slate up a bit. Regarding the discussion relocation, I moved it to its current location because that is exactly what that page exists for: discussion of how the categorization of films should proceed. Because of the large quantity of articles and properties of each one, it's been a continuing concern about which particular parameters should be used without cluttering up an article page needlessly. As mentioned above, this is a legacy problem of the software still not supporting dynamic user-defined category intersection, despite great user demand and higher-level support for the idea. (But that's another problem entirely...) All of these ideas have also been discussed before on that talk page, which is yet another reason to continue the dialogue there; so that other users can see that we haven't just arrived at a current position ex nihilo - which is not to say that we're unwilling to consider new solutions either, but knowing what arguments have already been made and rebutted probably should streamline things somewhat... In any case, nothing has been supressed and a link has been left for those interested in or already following the discussion, and we've brought an RfC alert. Girolamo Savonarola 01:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm NOT back, sorry

Dear Girolamo,

That was a kind note you left me, but I can't get involved again. I corrected an error on the George Eliot page after a Victorian literature mailing list and my colleagues at Distributed Proofreaders agreed that it was vandalism. I was quite distressed to find that the error had been been copied all over the net.

But I can't let myself be sucked into WP again. I get too upset. I hate doing what I see as good work and having idiots and ideologues erase it. There are more idiots and ideologues on the net than there are sensible people; it's a hopeless fight. I'm not referring to people who simply disagree with me; I've had productive collaborations with editors of wildly disparate views, as long as they're willing to let all views be represented. I mean the people who want to capture a WP article as a forum from which to spread their version of the "truth".

My time is much better spent at Distributed Proofreaders, where the people are intelligent and kind, and no one erases my work. Zora 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Awards WikiProject

Right now, doing the assessments and article creation list for the benefit of the Portal:Academy Awards, which probably needs to have such assessments to function. Not entirely sure whether it would be a regular effort, beyond trying to keep the portal up though. Whether the project would really fit in with films I'm less sure. This project seems to deal with the films and people involved with it, as opposed to the Films project which seems to be more about the films themselves. Having said that, I can't see any objections to some sort of merger, if you think it might get more attention to the articles that way. John Carter 19:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Digital" video camera

You're right, of course! I just went back to revert, and you had beat me to it. To the uninitiated (such as myself), film cameras and CCD-based cameras and such are all types of "video cameras". But upon reading the film camera article, it became clear that "video camera" is understood to mean non-film camera. Cheers! — HorsePunchKid 2007-10-11 16:30:17Z

Latent image

I think someone has dumped the wrong (film) template on the physics article rather than the 'movie' one. Rather like putting Gunter Grass's book (local anesthetic) in the medical section. Bob aka Linuxlad 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's correct. The only mistake is that the template text needs some revising (for which I've put in a requested edit on the protected template). We brought WikiProject Filmmaking into WikiProject Films as a task force; the new WP Films now covers all film topics. Girolamo Savonarola 19:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it - latent image is a physics topic really - your template should be on 'latent image (voyager episode)' I think Bob aka 80.177.213.144 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, latent image is a fundamental principle of cinematography (particularly film-based), and thus had the filmmaking tag. There's nothing prohibiting articles from having multiple tags if they're germane. Girolamo Savonarola 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you find a director :-) Bob aaka Linuxlad 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the stub instructions at the top, it's a template issue, not a project scope one. And as I've stated, we're working on the template to reflect the expanded scope. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Fog machine. Thank you. --Slashme 09:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inapppropriate templates

Hi --

You added a film task force template to Talk:Aperture priority and Talk:Fill light. The template provides suggestions clearly meant for actual films such as filling in plot summaries and cast/crew. Did you look at the actual subjects of these articles before adding the templates? These suggestions are not particularly appropraite to articles on film equipment and photography / filmmaking technical concepts. Perhaps there's a more appropriate template that could be added to these pages?

-- Avocado 14:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll put in a request for a change on the template talk page. -- Avocado 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry to have jumped the gun (I posted the request a moment ago). Thank you for taking care of it! -- Avocado 15:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your troubles for what it's worth

I don't know if you're into barnstars and I'm not really one for handing them out but here you go anyway. That's some nice work you did there with the the project reformation. I'm sure I would have voted for you in those elections if the outcome hadn't been inevitable. It's looking good. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Doctor Sunshine, hereby award Girolamo Savonarola the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Your seemingly single-handed and massive project restructuring is a tribute to your ambition and fortitude and a boon to the project and its new subsidiaries. Huzzah to you, sir. I say Huzzah. Awarded 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Film banner assessments

Congrats on the Coordinator position and star, they'll both be mentioned in the newsletter. That election was a close one, voter turnout was almost as high as the U.S. congressional elections! Anyway, I just wanted to know if you've been able to figure out if the List, Dab, template, etc. classes for the assessment can be removed from unassessed film articles. Once those are removed, I'll go through again and tag the rest of the actual unassessed articles using the Outrigger tool. I'm glad your upgrading the film banner, you've greatly improved it. For Template:Upgrading needed, do you plan to just create a whole other template that can be activated if a particular task force or other parameter is included? Otherwise I don't see how we can put other instructions for other film-related articles without making the template longer than it already is. There's no hurry on the unassessed articles issue, so if you have other things to focus on, don't worry about it.--Nehrams2020 03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! It had occurred to me that perhaps the instructions and advice could be variables based on some old (and new) parameters, maybe... The alternative might be to just have a short list of links to topic-specific advice pages, which leaves it to the user to decide where to go. (After all, they need to click just to see the advice now, so asking for another click isn't a big deal.) As for the unassessed classes, that unfortunately seems to be a larger assessment problem, AFAIK, so I can't resolve that myself. We've been discussing trying to include the List class within the statistics, as well as maybe a new FL class for featured lists. See here for the larger discussion. Girolamo Savonarola 03:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was just looking at the Films Tasks template, and one of the categories Category:Articles that need a film infobox, currently has no articles in it since we switched from using the separate template and incorporated it into the banner. Is there anyway to redirect to the articles that still need the infobox or is there already another category that I can link to? When I was looking at some of the pages that needed the infobox, the infobox request image was hidden in the banner and it had to be clicked to be seen. Can we force that part to stay constantly open so any editor can immediately see it without have to click the banner? For the Template:filmimage, do you want to add another parameter to the film banner so that it is also included like the infobox needed? It would probably help to save some room and be easier to add. --Nehrams2020 04:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That must be an old linkage, because the new parameter sends it to Category:Film articles needing infoboxes, which is a more standardized category form for a subcat within Category:Articles needing an infobox. And I already am hatching plans for including the requested photo, cast/crew section, and synopsis boxes within the banner as parameters. :) Girolamo Savonarola 04:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the original category since it will no longer be used. And I probably should have figured you had a few more cards up your sleeve concerning more parameters to the banner! Anyway, I need to get to studying for a test, so I'll talk to you again later. --Nehrams2020 04:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on the test! If work is as slow going all this week as it was today, I should have little problem finishing up a few more banner modifications in the coming days. Girolamo Savonarola 04:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplane

Sorry, the "revert" was unintentional; I don't know how it happened when I answered an old query on the talk page. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future films

Untitled X-Files Sequel is undergoing a discussion to merge, seen here. Feel free to add your $0.02. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you watch Erik's page, but I responded there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just so you know, I've seen your proposal about a task force to monitor future films, and I think that would be a good idea. I'm just trying to figure out what the best implementation would be -- I think that the majority of franchise films are pretty well-covered. The links that you see at User:Erik/Future articles are all on my watchlist, so I've been able to step in a dozen times and merge/redirect the content to the appropriate place. One problem, though, would be that not all editors create the film articles within naming conventions, so they can get away from us for a short period of time, where said editors may become too emotionally invested in it to follow the guideline. I was wondering, though, wouldn't a list be enormous? Besides franchise film articles, there's a lot of smaller films which are harder to address. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna copy this to your talk page so that we can centralize the discussion. Girolamo Savonarola 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a future film watchlist using THR's production listing. Gives us an idea of what exists and what doesn't. Some links are probably too vague (purposely so disambiguation links can be checked for). Feel free to make comments on the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took on the mop in a big way today -- check out User:Erik/Clean-up. I've successfully proposed deletion for about a dozen projects, and I'm dealing with a few issues, but not too many, thankfully. I've gone through # and A for Category:Upcoming films, though I didn't address all the Indian films. These seem somewhat tricky to address because the notability may not be possible to establish via English media. In any case, I'll keep going through the category, though I'll probably sit on the group of prodded articles so I don't have my hands too full if there's an issue with a few of them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned with the Indian films bc we have easy access to translators if need be, both through the Indian cinema task force and WP:TIE. The main notability issue for me is the same as for any other article - does the text establish notability? Do the linked actors and filmmakers, if they are significant enough? Are there references? I'm finding these Indian articles bc I'm doing a tagging drive for the task force, and to be frank, the problem isn't just the future films - there is a highly disproportional number of Indian film articles that have issues you don't find even in European film articles. The reasons for this are several, many of which have to do with language, familiarity with wiki-style and policy, prior project division, and systematic bias. However, some literally read like "Such and such film is a Tamil film and it was a success at the box office." And very little else - oftentimes not even a link or infobox. I'm planning on doing a task force-specific sweep to identify these articles and encourage their development, but it may be that a fair number of them will need to be AfD anyway if no significant progress can be made within a reasonable amount of time. So rest assured, it's not just future Indian films - it's an endemic issue that WP Films is going to have to tackle aggressively so as to bring them up to spec. (Which I presume will make everyone happy.) Girolamo Savonarola 05:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved Bignole comment to more relevant thread on User talk:Erik#HP7.

If you weren't aware, I responded about HP7 on my talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to head to bed for an early morning tomorrow, but I wanted to inform you that my plan for the ongoing clean-up is to go through two or three letters in Category:Upcoming films each day. I figure within two weeks or so, the category should be pretty well scrubbed. I was originally deleting successful prods, but I'm going to leave them this time so it can be gauged how many are removed. In addition, there's a few unsuccessful prods beside which I've left notes or suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great! I am thinking that it would be best for me to continue my PROD mission through Category:Upcoming films, after which the last batch expires, this can be introduced. That way, we can double back with a more visible list of intended films that failed their prods. I'll see if I can add any links that would expand on this page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why ain't you an admin?

I noticed you had to request protection of the Film banner. I'm stunned that you aren't already an admin, who could do that yourself. Is there any pressing reason (outstanding warrants for homicide, that sort of thing) why you aren't an admin yet? I can't imagine that you'd encounter much opposition. Anyway, you've got one vote if you do seek the position. John Carter 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that slightly irksome barrier, I don't really feel that I'm missing much by not having admin rights. And I'm also certain that I would have no shot at RfA - some of my discussions would be considered too "free", so to speak. (Frankly, I prefer this anyway, as not being an admin, I don't have to walk that tightrope.) Girolamo Savonarola 17:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I actually kind of agree with you on the last point. Diplomacy is a long way from being my strong point. John Carter 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I'm definitely trying to tighten up as I begin to take more responsibility as a project coordinator. Which is already responsibility enough. Nonetheless, I am grateful that you would ask me to consider the matter. Girolamo Savonarola 18:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised too, but I can see why you wouldn't want to be one. If you ever need an admin-related task completed, let me know and I'll help if I can. I looked over your user page before and was already trying to figure out what you were writing about. Just let me know what you want me to do and I'll try to help as I shouldn't be too busy this weekend. --Nehrams2020 02:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Coordinator coordination

Well, there are basically two areas of work:

The day-to-day stuff (opening/closing reviews, updating task lists, and all the other things listed as "Open tasks") is basically done on a whoever-gets-to-it-first basis. There's not that much of it, so it doesn't require any complex coordination.
The bigger things (starting new programs, etc.) are done on an ad-hoc basis, usually with extensive discussion; you can see much of that by looking through the status reports on the talk page.

As for task forces, we don't really coordinate them centrally; each one is pretty much autonomous. Kirill 04:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much just keeping the pages tidy and feeding them review announcements. (Which is not to say that we don't drop in to, say, task force discussions; but that's just us being active editors rather than acting as coordinators.)

Most task forces tend to be quite low-traffic; the bulk of the day-to-day business is carried out in the core project itself. Kirill 04:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably overstating it by quite a bit. The coordinators do the bulk of the core maintenance tasks within the project itself, but a lot of the external WikiGnome work (tagging, assessing, fixing templates, etc.) is done by other editors. We do a lot of the planning for major efforts in that regard, though.

More generally, I'd say that the focus of the coordinators is really making the project as a whole function smoothly, so that editors that only interface with specific portions of it (asking for/doing reviews, assessment, writing articles, designing templates, etc.) don't need to concern themselves with how everything actually comes together behind the scenes. Kirill 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Films

Desoite knowing that your a fab editor, I and (as I can see) others have not been too pleased with this future films thing. I kindly ask you to remove the AfDs as the articles are well sourced and show a clear link. Thank You. Universal Hero 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The future films issue was discussed throughly at the guideline's talk page, and the arguments are clearly presented there and had consensus. If you wish to preserve the information, I would suggest placing them in the relevant filmmakers' articles (with appropriate sourcing of course). If you disagree with the guideline, I'd suggest taking that to the guideline's talk page for further discussion; however, fighting the guideline in an AfD is not likely to be given weight by the reviewing editors. Girolamo Savonarola 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful, if you tell me in which way these films fail notability..........so I can make them content. Universal Hero 10:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think its important that reliable references are added to these tamil films. Often some do appear quite vague. I would suggest Giro that if you come across any further to give Universal a list of films which need more assertion and references for him to address and if he can't then put them up for afd afterwards. I also don't like to see future film stubs without references -wikipedia isn't a crystal ball but I'm sure many of these films that Universal has started are notable enough if they are expanded and referenced. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see what I mean when I told you the vast difference in quality between Indian film articles!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Often you see something like this:

Dharikaman malaki' is an up and coming Telugu film starring Govinda Pedibump. It is expected to recieve rave reviews and do well at the box office.

category:films

Seem familiar?

The problem is often there aren't enough reliable english sources for these films as Bollywood tends to dominate Indian cinema and in the english speaking world. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem with most of these are WP:NF violations for future films - it's not a matter that can be solved by editing. That being said, I have been aware of the deficiencies of many of the Indian cinema articles; I'm not certain that English sourcing is a problem, however, for two reasons. One, we have no shortage of translators who can assist; and two, English is the most common second language in India - it's the lingua franca amongst all speakers regardless of their first language. Therefore it is sometimes as common, if not moreso, for Indian news to be written in English, especially online. This is not, of course, uniformly the case, but I don't think that finding coverage for any of these films is too difficult after production has commenced.

The other major task that we need to do for all film articles, regardless of region of origin, is a massive sweep on the lookout for grossly deficient stubs which have received no significant editing in recent months. We can collate these together into a list and request that they be brought up to an acceptable minimum standard - all the articles which can't meet that within, say, six months, would then be up for AfD. That's just one idea, however. And as mentioned, has nothing to do with these articles I've recently raised, which are WP:NF problems. Girolamo Savonarola 17:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OH I completely agree with this. I mean what is the point in articles which don't and won't provide any information whatsoever? I for one am very keen to filter out these articles. However with Indian films whilst we may have many Hindi translators, i guarantee there won't be as many tamil, telugu, malayalam, bengali, and urdu speaking users. Many of these films are more prominent within non english speaking India unlike many Bollywood films which have become increasingly international. Some of the other films may be seen 50 million odd people in India but who often don't speak english and most online information is in the native language but does this mean it isn't notable enough for wikipedia? Do you think all films must have some kind of international recogniation for notability. I am aware of WP:NF but what do you think. Plus I restarted the article Nicotina. It is mostly Mexican produced and partly Argentine ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I don't like articles on future films in general anyway particularly if they are mostly empty. WIkipedia isn't a crystal ball and we shouldn't try to document something which hasn;t been completed yet ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens has to be within the bounds of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. That means that NF has to be respected regardless of the film - if we enforce it for big Hollywood would-be blockbusters like Transformers 2 which have numerous sources, we can certainly do it for smaller films. And that also means that our references need to be transparent, which means either English or thoroughly vetted by a neutral translator. I don't think that's too much to ask for, and if that can't be met, then the article should not exist - it's not a judgment of the relevance of the topic, but of the quality of the editing. As for Nicotina, I believe that the original problem was a copyvio problem, so of course I have no objections to the new article - it seems properly created this time. Girolamo Savonarola 17:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think compiling a hot list of the grossly under deficient stubs is a great idea. If they still don't provide any information whatsoever in three months and no online sources can be found or the article creator under request hasn't expanded it I think they should be driven out. Theres nothing worse than expectantly clicking a link hoping for a nice rewarding article and seeing a one liner ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is kinda hard to believe...

that the lead coordinator of a really large project doesn't get a lot of recognition. Luckily, we can do something about that, can't we? And, believe it or not, this is actually intended as a complement.

File:Haig-award.png

I, John Carter, hereby grant to the visionary and leader, Girolamo Savonarola, the General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor for his extraordinary work in taking charge of the film WikiProject and the articles relevant to that project. You are an extraordinary individual willing to take on difficult tasks, sir, and deserve all of our respect and gratitude for your efforts.

I dunno, do you think I maybe overdid it a little? Anyway, you do need at least a couple symbols of respect on your user page, given your position and all. John Carter 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D

Hey Girolamo. May I quickly ask for your input? I'm banging heads with User:Unless you over whether the article for Year Zero's remix album should be named Year Zero Remixed or Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. The section dubbed Album titles and band names says "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band))." I interperet "Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D" as stylized typography, Unless doesn't. I want to have consensus at the talk page before moving it again, and I'd appreciate your input. Cheers. -- Reaper X 22:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Orthography RfC

Perhaps. What exactly would we need to do? -- Reaper X 03:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:Request for comments/Naming conventions (orthography) and start stating the issues (at a project level). Girolamo Savonarola 03:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Wood

I saw at User:Girolamo Savonarola/dps that you had Oliver Wood (cinematographer) on the list. I recently created a stub out of Oliver Wood, which was previously a redirect to a minor character from Harry Potter. There's just the body of work for Oliver Wood there, but wanted to give you the heads up that it exists now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I had originally created the parenthetical bc it didn't seem worth arguing about with the Potterites when no article for the DP existed. Girolamo Savonarola 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator

I'll be looking it over hopefully over the week, but my time has just been limited some due to the recent San Diego fires. I'm volunteering at the NFL Charger's stadium, so it's limiting my editing time, but I'll do my best to look it over sometime this week. Sorry, for the delay. --Nehrams2020 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and of course I don't think you're breathing down my neck. My priority will be to bring down the unassessed article backlog using the Metarigger tool which shouldn't take too long. Fortunately I'm several miles away from the fires, so I shouldn't worry about them getting to the campus. Classes are cancelled all week so that may give me more time. I'll try to look over the page within the next day or two. --Nehrams2020 02:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asia cinema task force

That's a great idea! I'm willing to do the work to help get it proposed, but I'll perhaps need a few days to set things into motion - it's a busy time of year for me. Or, if you want to get it started, let me know, and I'll sign on and lend what support I can when I can. — WiseKwai 08:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. I wanted it to include more than Thailand which Wise works on as i do some work on Flipino, Indonesian films also. I also want to whip some of the more notable Malaysian films into shape some time ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this set up asap -my name is down. I've done a lot of work on INdonesian films the last few days and would like to see more even coverage on here of them. It would also include SIngapore, Cambodia and Vietnam which have smaller industries. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Presumably it would cover all the cinemas as noted in Southeast Asian cinema, which even mentions Myanmar and Laos. — WiseKwai 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that move on the council page. — WiseKwai 13:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giro. I have recently begun developing the Brazilian lists and films and some Mexican films. Is it possible we could move the Argentine cinema task force to Latin cinema taskforce which would include Brazil, Mexico and Spain and Portugal and the other small South American industries into one group. Spain, Argentine and Mexican films are often co produced and related and Brazilian and Portuguese film also. These are the biggest film producers in the Latin world. Could we move the Argentine page to Latin? I would like to write up what needs doing for these other countries soon enough. Also did you think any more about splitting the genre categories by decade? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Four editors have shown interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeast Asian cinema, and a couple of the guys have been asking me about it. How many do you reckon we need to activate the task force? Thanks! — WiseKwai 09:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to go for me. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to deal with it earlier, but I've been offline for over a week now since I've been moving (and subsequently waiting for internet service to be connected). I should get around to it tomorrow, probably. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You're not officially moved in until the Internet is hooked up. Anyway, take your time and get situated. — WiseKwai 10:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page tags

Not sure what your talking about but whatever it was it must have been a while ago and wasn't meant to mean anything. In the future do not assume that an action such as this was meant to mean anything. I don't care about "Multiple project templates have always been acceptable" or any other crap. Don't bother me about such insignificant things. Plus I made the f*&(^ing page. --Savre 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil and assume good faith, - I've alerted you to a potential problem so as to avoid it recurring the future. Girolamo Savonarola 20:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the page history and now I'm not even sure what the hell your on about. I didn't even remove anything? In fact I was actual helping the page out by classing importance etc. --Savre 20:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This diff deleted the film tag inorder to place the NZ one. Girolamo Savonarola 21:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award articles

To: User talk:Girolamo Savonarola

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Wikipedia Film Projects

Hello. I noticed that you recently went through all of the Academy Award articles and placed some type of "Film Projects" banner on each of their Talk Pages. In some cases, you added the banner. In some cases, it appears that you removed the "Academy Award Projects" banner and replaced it with the "Film Projects" banner. Basically, I am confused by all of this and I am wondering what it all means. Can you please explain this to me? Is "Film Projects" some new project that you are starting? Did anything happen to the "Academy Awards Projects"? Did the latter get extinguished for some reason? Did the latter get absorbed into the former? I am totally confused. Please let me know. Thanks a lot. Please reply at my Talk Page ----> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There was a merge discussion with WP Films that went on for several weeks and was more or less unanimously in favor of merging WP Academy Awards into WP Films as a task force, while also expanding its scope to cover all film awards; hence, the Film awards task force. All we have done is changed the tags to reflect this, and slightly restructured the page; however, larger things such as templates, style guidelines, and membership lists have remained intact. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns about the matter. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that received the Golden Film

Thank you for your review. I've posted my reply on Wikipedia:Peer review/List of films that received the Golden Film/archive1. – Ilse @ 08:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detagging film pages

I just figured that those tags were redundant, as the anime wikiproject was also covered by the films wikiproject. I wasn't trying to exclude the film wikiproject, I figured it was represented on the article by the anime wikiproject anyway (being its child project). Ninja neko 09:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally a bad idea to remove tags en masse without there being prior discussion between the projects. Being within a child project's scope does not automatically deprecate the parent's scope. Girolamo Savonarola 16:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem at all with the wp:film's involvement. I just thought it was automatically included since wp:anime is a child project. Anyhow, just to comment: WP:Japan template is never added on the WP:Anime article (Template talk:WikiProject Japan#Where to add this template). Also in the category Category:Anime films, not many of these articles have the wp:films tag (so the usage is not consistent either). Ninja neko 09:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to the deficiency in Anime films; I will try to address it when my current to-do list dies down a little more. As for WP Japan, I can't speak to their tagging scope and policies, but it might be in their interest to ask them if its an area they wish to tag as well. Thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi Giro, Thanks for the barnstar award. Just hope I can be of help as the project progresses. Thanks again. RWardy 12:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October Newsletter

I just started the newsletter and mentioned the new task forces and Coordinators. Will you please take a look at the newsletter and see if you can expand on what I wrote or add anything you think is relevant that occurred this month that I overlooked? Thanks. --Nehrams2020 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of The Scenic Route

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Scenic Route, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Scenic Route is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Scenic Route, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]