User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 7

Core list

I started the "Core" list of films on my sandbox and it currently includes all of the "Top" parameter films (around 130) and their current status. I'll be expanding on it more, but I'm sure it's going to need a lot of feedback after I get a basic list down. Do you want to take a look at it, add films, and see what else it needs before we take it public? Also, should we wait to release it until the importance parameter is completely gone or will this be shown at the same time? Let me know what else needs to be done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the "Top" priority list because many are possibilities for including on the list, although there are also multiple films that definitely should not be on there. Good idea with removing the FAs, that will allow for more films on the list. I do think that outside lists would be a great resource to create the core list, and I just figured that this Top list would be a good start for a few films that should be on the list. I do agree with everything you listed on the talk page, and after beginning with this, I'll start looking for outside lists soon to develop it further. Ten films/topics sounds like a good number for each task force to use, especially for the smaller task forces who wouldn't ordinarily be able to include that many. With the current task forces that will be about 150 articles to begin with. Would we select more films for inclusion after each task force selected their lists that they didn't include or should we already have a list from outside sources and just match up films we've already selected? I'll keep looking for outside lists, including the ones you described and develop them throughout the week. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job, that list is a great find! Besides films are we also including articles such as Film, Silent film, Movie theater, Academy Awards, Cinema of the United States, etc. as well? Or just films? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, most definitely, but some of that will be able to be addressed by the non-cinema task forces (Awards, Festivals, Filmmaking, etc). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Loving Couples

Hello. I'm curious why you changed the name of this article, since there aren't any other films called Loving Couples or any other articles with that title either. I thought the only time you used (1980 film) in an article title was if there were other films with the same name and it was necessary to differentiate them, and (film) if there were other articles for a book, play, rock group, etc. with the same title. The change you made doesn't seem to follow the usual format. Thank you for explaining. MovieMadness (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Namely because of this film, which I've put on the requested articles list. Looking at the IMDb, there's also this, although I'm more dubious as to it's notability. But the 1964 film is most definitely notable. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither example you cited is an English-language film. Shouldn't articles for foreign films be created with the title under which they were released, especially if they weren't given wide (or any) release in the US? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, see WP:NCF. Plus, the IMDb page shows that there has been a release on DVD with the English title. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fulbrighter deletetion

Dear Girolamo,

With such a name you should support Italian filmmakers!! However regarding your message on Filippella's profile let me say that he has not won just a Fulbright award, but 2 Philip Morris, 1 Sergio Corbucci, the "golden capitello" at the Sant'Agata dei Goti Film Festival, the Deviate Award in Nothern Ireland, the Cultural and Diversity program Award, RIFF Award, European Film Festival special mention in 2003, Fujii film prize in 2008 and many otherds. Among all these prizes and awards his films have been selected in many International Film Festivals. Filippella has also been invited to screen his works at the Fine Arts Theater in Beverly Hills for a special event and Q&A last July in 2007 where he got many positive reviews from well known journalists. In fact this page was created after that event. He has been interviewed by one of the oldest magazines of film in the industry (note source reference on his profile on IMDB) as one of the most promising young directors in Hollywood. I wish you all the best. Thank you.

Samantha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.5.130 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. Nonetheless, read WP:BIO. This is not a matter of accomplishment, but rather notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Film

Hi. I am a new member in this project. How about a separate section "New article announcement". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's already a link on the sidebar to a page which performs the same function with far less human overhead. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Stone (film)

Hi I have left a few comments on this talk page with links to a few film locations. I would have added these before but I thought it would be deemed inappropriate for the article. Check them out. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work getting the photos and entering them into the Commons! Looking at the article, I'm not certain where they'd go, though - unless there's an explicit point to be made in comparing the locations today to how they looked then. I'd also get rid of the Google links for the locations - if they should go anywhere, those links should be in the articles about those locations. Best of luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I did add one link to the photo of the gun emplacement in the list of locations mainly becuase I couldn't work out where to put the pic. I think that was my only only contrib to the article apart from linking the article Middle Head Fortifications. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Golden Film

I would like to ask you, whether you still want to comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden Film. – Ilse@ 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies! I had entirely forgetten. I've gone and left some comments. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've tried to improve the article and have a question concerning the transclusion of the number of awarded films. – Ilse@ 09:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A Moment of Innocence

A tag has been placed on A Moment of Innocence, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kannie | talk 01:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, but I have deleted the warnings. A cursory glance at the only wikilink in the article would have satisfied your notability concerns. (And cost you less editing time.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the rightfully placed redirect on that sentence. It is not an article. It is, however, a clear-cut A1. No content whatsoever. This is the type of non-entry which should be deleted and has been in the past. Now all we have is a single, useless sentence and a couple of stub notices. I am going to be bold and redirect it for now. If anyone else wnats to step up and expand this, please do so. I just had to do that to another article and I am SO not interested in doing it again. Thank you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And if I restore the sentence and add an infobox it suddenly becomes an article? That seems to be the operating logic as far as db/let it grow. This film is about to be placed on the Film WikiProject's core list, and will be expanded shortly. It is not trivial, and it is a significant work of a significant director. So if you want me to create an infobox to placate, please by all means let me know. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is the article itself didn't meet the minimum requirements for inclusion because of its length and not its subject. It was a declarative sentence which anyone researching the subject already knew. It's like saying "The Wizard of Oz is a 1939 movie starring Judy Garland." Not muchthere, but it's a true statement about an important film. I thought I'd put my money where my mouth was and expand it myself; thanks for the IMDb link. I was just about to add it myself. All I'm saying is that the article should have had a plot synopsis at the very least. A taxobox is a great idea. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you - read CSD A1 again: Context is different than content, treated in A3, below. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. It's just that the site just gets clobbered by these sorts of contentless stubs which never seem to get expanded. I believe that the onus is on the original author to add the necessary "meat" for a minimum stub. I'm surprised that a film of this importance hasn't had an article before now, but we now have a nice stub. Sorry if I bit too hard. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I should have taken a closer look at the fact that you were the original author. Given your edit history, I would never have tagged or redirected it. Again, please accept my apologies. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. And I'm sorry if I came on a bit cranky; I guess I'm just not used to getting db'ed! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I had the same problem not long ago with a db. Heck, it's gotten impossible to add new content without having to watch for some notice tag or other. You had every reason to be cranky. I honestly wouldn't have touched it had I been more diligent. Do take care and thanks for being a class act. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Crow / Australian task force

Hi, I see you've been tagging talkpages for the Australian task force. Just curious as to why you've added The Crow (film). I know the director is Aussie, but the film is American, as far as I'm aware. Is the nationality of the director make it part of the task force? --BelovedFreak 19:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The idea of the task force scope is to be somewhat inclusive, since the group is based on participant interest, and its categorization only applies to the Talk page, not the article itself. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --BelovedFreak 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Aguirre - is it time?

Thanks for your kind words regarding the Aguirre, the Wrath of God article. Personally, while I feel the article is pretty good as is I think it would be best to wait some more time before considering it for FA. I'd like to expand the "Production" section a tad, and am currently waiting for a copy of Herzog on Herzog that I've ordered to see if there are more details in that book to add. If possible, I'd like to flesh out the "Legacy" section, too, if I can find some notable/reliable sources. In addition, it has been suggested by others that a "Themes" section is necessary. I do have some scholarly articles provided to me by another editor that should be of assistance in that regard. After all that is done, I'll offer the article to be peer reviewed for any possible additional ideas for improvement.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I look forward to seeing your changes. I can't promise I won't pester you again, though... :) I have a vested interest in cheerleading the GA and A-Class film articles towards FAC. Also, you may want to know that we're compiling a Core list for the Film project, and of course Aguirre will have the honor of gracing it. So the article may also be receiving additional attention, as it currently is a "low-hanging fruit".... Regards, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

Certainly around May I'll be making a lot of Jones-related edits, and I would focus more on getting Doom and Crusade to GA first. Alientraveller (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Korean task force

Did you move this or what? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 11:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Got the okay from the participants, and took care of several weeks ago, now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I;ve just checked it out. I really like the new arrangements!! And that organization near the beginning of the main project page. I;m afraid I;ve been very busy with geo-related articles that I've hardly had time to edit film this year so far! Hope you are well. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 12:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Aussie task force is an interesting one, I thought Pete would have had something to do with that but clearly not. Whatever happened to him and Hoverfish? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 12:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Terrible idea. See this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Australian cinema task force articles by quality

Hi. You tagged Category:Australian cinema task force articles by quality for speedy deletion, citing the criteria A1 and A3. The category cannot be deleted under the chosen criteria as they are applicable only to the article namespace (hence the "A" ;)) If you still want the category deleted, it can be deleted under G7 which applies to all namespaces and applies in this situation as well, since no other significant contributions have been made to the category itself. Cheers, Spebi 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to want to delete the three pages that are in that category? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Still Life (1974 film)

An editor has nominated Still Life (1974 film), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still Life (1974 film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films

To: User talk:Girolamo Savonarola

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films

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))

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)

Thanks for the reply. OK, so I now have several questions about all of this. Are you the appropriate person of whom I may ask my questions? I was surfing around Wikipedia and found the following page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators) which listed your name as a Lead Project Coordinator regarding Wikipedia articles on Films, Film Awards, Academy Awards, etc. Please advise if I may ask you ... or if there is some other more appropriate contact person? Many thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. I look forward to hearing back from you soon. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

I'd be happy to further answer any other questions you have. (For the record, the lead coordinator position only applies to the administration of WikiProject Films and its structure - I have no executive or exceptional privileges with regards to the articles themselves.) Girolamo Savonarola 11:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's fine ... and that's a good start. Can you please take a look at this ---> Talk:Academy Award#Academy Awards Records Section ... and let me know your thoughts on the issue. Please reply at my Talk Page. Many thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Hello? ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

The split is a good idea, but the information should be reliably sourced as soon as possible. Otherwise it will be an open target for deletion by cleanup editors. Best of luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Number 1 - The split has already occurred. See List of Academy Award records. And Number 2 - The split article has already been proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Award records. Thus, at this point, how can we galvanize members of the Film Project / Academy Award Project to do the following two things: (a) provide their input / feedback / opinions / suggestions in the deletion disucssion; and (b) help to fix the problems with the article so that it meets Wiki standards to avoid deletion? Please let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Hello. I sent you this above message on December 5 ... which is almost two full months ago ... and I have not yet received a reply from you. I am curious -- why is that? You said that you were the lead coordinator for the WikiProject Films ... and you further said that you would be happy to answer my questions. Please reply at My Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

I alerted other editors on both the WP Films talk page and Film awards task force talk page. Furthermore, I commented on the AfD myself, and my comments still stand - there are large sections of the article which require sourcing. Everything should have a citation from a reliable source. You can see WP:CITE to learn how to implement your references properly. Is there anything else I can assist you with? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not disputing that you took all of those actions. Today, however, was the first time that you made me aware of it. So, my original question stands: ... I have not yet received a reply from you. I am curious -- why is that? ... Please reply at My Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

I'm not exactly certain - it probably just slipped my mind after I made the above actions. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your reply. And thanks for looking into this matter, earlier, when I had asked you to do so. And for taking the appropriate follow-up actions. Thank you. Take care. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Core list announcement

When do you think you are planning to announce the Core list? If it is going to be soon, would you like me to make a mention of it in the newsletter, which will be sent out by Friday? If you're still setting up the details and want to wait, then I can wait until next month to mention it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask, I had been putting it off due to some pressing real-world work, and debated mentioning it to you. In any case, that's done now, so I expect to announce it in a few... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Films based on books

Howdy! What the heck is an MOS? True, the sub-project is pretty much Me, Myself, and I. I would feel a brief pang if it were "upmerged" but would bravely pitch in as usual nevertheless. I presume this would not mean an elimination or other radical reconfiguration of the categories? So tell me what you're thinking of doing? Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style. The master one is at WP:MOS, but some of the larger projects like MilHist have worked long and hard to provide subject-specific ones. Basically, it would mean that the style guidelines would have the larger force of being a part of the MOS. We really need to overhaul a lot of the larger guidelines anyway to provide a more comprehensive guidance for all of our subject types. But to answer your main question, no, I wouldn't dream of disturbing the "meat" of the subproject's guidelines, much less muck about with the categories. This is mainly a relocation/housekeeping thing. I just didn't want to pull the rug out from under you when I did it. It still probably is at least several weeks away, I'd hazard to guess. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Carry on, then, and more power to you. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

London Rock and Roll Show

Re your adding of The London Rock and Roll Show to the Australian films task force, are you sure the film really justifies that? Yes, it was directed by an Australian, but it was filmed in British by a British company and featured primarily US and UK performers. I don't know if it really qualifies. It's no big deal - I'm just curious. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it counts. The task forces are relatively broad in scope, to reflect potential editorial interest. It really only affects the talk page categorizations anyway, so it's nothing to get too bothered about, but in short, yes. See the task force page for a more detailed discussion of scope. Regards, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool. I wasn't sure if it was a manual addition or a bot and there's been occasions where I've seen articles listed under task forces erroneously so I thought I'd check. I left it be in any case. 23skidoo (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Dunn bio

Many thanks for your reply at 23Skidoo's page and on my talk page. I'm afraid I don't know the significance of encoding the word "film" in double brackets. Where should I place that?Meticuliz (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which edit are you referring to? I've been editing a lot today, so it might be easier if you could show me a diff. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Quick request

will do.Tryptofeng (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will too. Thanks for the pointer. Bláthnaid 12:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob Hoskins

Thanks for the response, I'll see if there are any sources! --Solumeiras (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Actor

Hello. It is my understanding that you are the lead coordinator for Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I would like you to take a look at this Talk Page entry --> Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor#Someone is trying to ruin this article. Please let me know your thoughts on this issue. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

Australian film?

Do you really believe that a film about a Tennessee political scandal, filmed in the States, is of interest to the Australina film folks, just because the director was an expatriate from Oz? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The purpose of the scope of the task forces is to be inclusive, in order to accommodate diverse interests, have a holistic view of the field, and so on. I don't see what the particular fuss is about - this is only adding categories to the talk page. Essentially, we're defining Australian cinema as being any of three particular things: films made in Australia, films made by Australians, and films made by Australian production companies (and including co-productions). Different people may include or exclude some of these from their personal definition of a national cinema, but experience shows from past edit conflicts that its best to acknowledge them all and let the user draw their own conclusions. Again, since this is a talk-page issue, there's really no need to get fussed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 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. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ratings policy changes?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Review so that any other interested editors may discuss.

Deletion of seemingly non-cinema resources

Good day, Girolamo! I noticed that the additions I made to the Indian Cinema Wikiproject was removed. Under the section 'Resources', I inserted Google Scholar and other information resources that could be used to obtain information about a film or a film personnel. These resources came in helpful in finding supporting references and information for some of the Cinema-related articles that I had edited, a good example being Ilaiyaraaja, which was a stub that was subsequently developed into an A-Class article in a short span of time using information found through scholarly articles not usually found on the World Wide Web. I feel that these additional resources would be beneficial to editors and participants of the Indian cinema Wikiproject and that is why I added them to the list of 'resources'. Just thought I'd explain my actions. Regards, AppleJuggler (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that you meant well, but there are many internet sites that have potential applicability, but are too broad in scope. One has to consider the implications, mainly that of linkspam. The Resources section is really meant for sites which cover subject-specific content. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a good, valid point there in saying that general Internet sites are too broad in scope, and, I feel, can be too subjective or sensational in nature. However, that is not what I refer to. I refer to Google Scholar (www.scholar.google.com -- take a look), which searches for academic articles, which some editors may find beneficial in finding researched/evidenced material on a subject. It is a useful tool overlooked and underused by Wikipedians. I myself used it to great effect, for example, in developing the A-class article Ilaiyaraaja: I found journal articles that provided substantiated information and studied analysis about this musician/film score composer, information that found a deserved place in the Wiki article about this subject. AppleJuggler (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as lists go, the links need to be directly pertinent to the subject in particular. Otherwise they become spam farms; unfortunately that's the way of things. We do, however, have general style guidelines across the whole project, and discussing these resources in prose with regard to their applicability would be very valuable, if that's something you'd be interested in. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, that's understood now. It's best to leave things as they are then. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. Have a good weekend! AppleJuggler (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP film side plate

Hmm as much as I like your changes I think it is more important to have the task forces at the top. The way it is now it is less likely than ever before not to attract people. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Top of what? We can't very well put it atop the general information. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Child's Play (2009)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Child's Play (2009), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Child's Play (2009) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Child's Play (2009), 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this?

Hello, After I finally though I knew was it was, you denyed me success!  :) Do you know what audio format it is? I will make a link in the appropriate site.

I believe that is a normal 35mm audio track, with variable density sound. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Do17z wikifilm.jpg - As to the posting in 35mm Film, Why not? The article goes on about how flexible the design was and has 2 modern samples. So why does this one 60+ years prior showing the early days not contribute?

Oh, is this image a mirror opposite? I suspect it is, you need your expertise to confirm it.

Thanks --Flightsoffancy 03:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)--

The other pictures were examples which illustrated specific principles discussed within the relevant portion of the article. Your graphic did not do so in any appreciable manner, IMO. Articles really are not about graphics, and a profusion of them does not enrich it; indeed they can often have the opposite effect. I generally only add them as necessary, and there is no way to demonstrate via graphics that the frame in question is in fact a nitrate-base. Were the graphic to be a closeup of the area outside of the perfs which said "nitrate", there might be a better argument in favor. (And if you do have access to such materials, please do let me know.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I have not seen anything on the film except AGFA, but i may have missed it. If there is a part of the image, closeup and such, you would like, I can provide. I scanned it at 1500dpi, so you will have lots of detail. Thanks for your input.

Oh, and what do you think, is the image mirror opposite? Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean does it need to be flipped around? Yes - the sound strip usually should be oriented to the lefthand side, IIRC... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

Thanks. I don't quite remember, but I think that's my first barnstar. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm not sure what precisely I did to deserve the recognition, but it's appreciated. I hope everything is going well on your end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Still in shock

Thank you very much for your kind words!

(I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm not going to be active in WikiProject development issues, though. I'll quite probably still be coming up with stuff—I just won't be responsible for actually making it work. ;-) Kirill 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My questions at WikiProject Films

I know that you put the list in the announcements, but you could add your opinions to them, too. :) Come on, take a look at a few of them, and tell me what you think...please? - LA @ 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But of course. I'll have to beg my bedtime for now, but I'll try have a look tomorrow! :) Take care, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Girolamo, could you take a crack on some of the questions soon? - LA @ 07:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Apologies for taking so long! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I expanded my explanation for the Godzilla thing. - LA @ 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

private ryan, bleach, imdb

Sorry about that. I was wondering myself if I should put it in. Best, --Shlishke (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems to be hearsay, and coming from the IMDb trivia section doesn't really dispel that impression. I'm not sure how relevant it really would be to the bleach bypass article as a whole, although if you can find a better source, it may be worth a mention on the Saving Private Ryan article. Best, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Importance scale

I noticed on the talk page of some film articles like Talk:The Fountain that the importance= parameter is not functional. Is this something that needs to be addressed? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an error that was created on one of the template subpages. See Template talk:Film at the bottom. It appears that some of the more template-saavy editors have already identified the problem and fixed it, but this may take several hours before it clears the cache across all of the articles, since it is a heavy-use template. Thanks for the heads up! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese cinema task force

Thanks for the note, Girolamo. Yes, I definitely think Japanese cinema needs a task force, and I don't think it would be very difficult to find a few editors interested in working on it. Due to a couple of recent troubling incidents, I'm at the beginning of one of my periodic Wiki-crises/depressions, and will probably be slowing down or taking a break, so I wouldn't be the one to start a new project right now. I wish you well on the Core project, but it's not really the type of project in which I have much talent or interest. (It would be hard for me to leave out personal judgments/biases, and not very interesting for me to survey the critical/box-office "best of" lists.) PC78 asked me to comment there, so I dropped off a few thoughts. I do think it's a worthy project though and wish you well with it. Happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Film Formats

I'm not really sure how to improve it. Let me try to see what issues I do have:

• There's just a huge amount of data, and that's always tough. Possibly it would make sense to have multiple tables that are all views into the same set of information. Wikipedia isn't very good for that, and I'm not proposing it, just thinking out-loud.
• On the few occasions that I've tried to use it, it's generally been to address a question like, "What's the projection aperture for modern 1.85:1?" It so happens that the two entries with 1.85:1 as the projection A/R agree it is 825x446, but its not obvious that "Matted 1.85:1" from 1953 is indeed synonymous with a current modern format. My recollection was I gave up and found a reference that was more clearly discussing modern stuff.
• The "Modern anamorphic" entry seems clear when I look at it now, but I remember feeling some lack of confidence in it previously. I can't justify that feeling, though.
• If "Super 16 mm film" can say under Projection "no standard, but often blown up to 35 mm," then perhaps "Super 35" should say it's usually (often?) blown up to 2.39.
• The more I look at it, the more content I am :). It's tough to make pages like that work. Thanks for putting all the effort in!

jhawkinson (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish

Sorry for that non order from A to Z, but almost I miss a train yesterday. I go on holidays 2 weeks. Rohmerin (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMCORE

(I created the shortcut WP:FILMCORE to make things easier.) I apologize for not being able to provide any feedback about the Core subpage. What are the pressing concerns for the subpage at the moment? Anything that I can chip in about? In a way, your list has inspired me to pursue a revision of Citizen Kane, since I was thinking that it ought to be a flagship article for WP:FILM. Presently, editors J.D. and Alientraveller are working on a draft, which I hope to add to with some critical analysis (found plenty of it accessible, thankfully). But going back to the list, I just wanted to jump into the discussion if there were still issues abound. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New topic

Hey Girolamo Savonarola, I guess you are right. I have saved both the pages (Kambakth Ishq & Main Aur Mrs. Khanna) on my computer. When they actually begin filming, I will then create the page, and will provide reliable sources indicating the film is filming. BTW, I know you deleted the page on Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi before but some user created it again. If you could be so kind, could you nominate the page for deletion again. Thanks and regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 03:02, 29 February 2008

Thanks for the heads up! I look forward to seeing the articles again when the time is right. Good editing! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Girolamo. I'm a bit confused. Isn't a pre-production status sufficient to create an article on the Wiki? If so, I will change my vote. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, no - just the contrary. See WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Girolamo Savonarola, another person created the page again for Main Aur Mrs Khanna. What should we do now?? The film hasn't started filming yet! --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 02:45, 7 March 2008

Newsletter draft

I just finished the draft of the February newsletter. Please take a look and add any other new changes to the project that I may have overlooked. You may want to update what I put for the core list, as it is pretty much the same thing I put last month. I added a little quotes game at the end of the newsletter as to hopefully continue to drive interest to the newsletter, but if you don't think it to be appropriate, feel free to remove it. I'll take a look at the coordinator page in the next day by the way, sorry for the delay. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks good! I did some minor editing to Core note. The quotes section is not a bad idea at all, but I would simply recommend putting it at the top of the right column (and answers at the bottom), so as to separate it out from the editing news and also balance the length of each side. Other than that, seems fine to me. Well done. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 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 delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Gold Diggers

Hi - when you moved the article for "The Gold Diggers", the 1923 Warners silent, to The Gold Diggers (1923 film), in order to use The Gold Diggers as a dab page, you probably should have updated the articles that linked there as well. I've done it now (most of them were articles I wrote or heavily edited anyway!), but just FYI. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind me - it's late, I've got a meeting in the morning I don't want to go to, and I'm cranky. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)