December 2010

Saw 3D: Changed "IS to "WAS" for deceased characters

Hey Mike-- I saw your edit with the summary "Changed "IS to "WAS" for deceased characters". Very helpful, thank you. However, I'm a bit concerned that we might have to revert it. When we are talking about fictional characters, it's unnecessary to refer to them in past tense (i.e. "IS" to "WAS") because we are not talking about these them "in-universe" (or at least we shouldn't be), and also because of the fact that they're characters--just because they're dead doesn't mean they-as-characters cease to exist anymore. I personally don't have a problem with your edit--to me it seems more grammatically correct--however, I've seen discussions about why characters should remain in present tense in character articles and list of character articles. Perhaps policies have changed and I just missed it; your edit may very well meet an updated policy's standards. I don't know. Either way, I thought I'd run that by you. Thanks again! Best, Geeky Randy (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this guideline located? I haven't read any, I was just going by how the others are listed. I suppose it makes sense though, then on the other hand it doesn't sound right like you said. Please don't revert my edit. I made other changes with the anchors (did it after I wrote the edit summary). I guess we should ask the film project. Also, what do you think of the Palmar being listed? I think if a character only has two sentences describing them, they shouldn't be on the list. Mike Allen 02:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might think of it in terms of how the WP:TV people think of it. Listing the characters in past tense is sort of like "presentism" by focusing on the most recent installment of a series (be it film or television). So as characters are killed off of various shows they are supposed to be referred to in the present tense. "Mr. Such and Such stalks Ms. So and So until the second season when he is killed in a freak tetherball accident". Millahnna (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe we can look into it further. As for Palmer's inclusion; I agree two sentences is very short. I won't object to Palmer's removal from the list, however I do think that any victim of Jigsaw is somewhat notable to the series and therefore should be included. If Palmer appeared in more than one film but had a very small part (i.e. Detective Fisk from Saw IV and Saw V) I would push to leave the character in. But since Palmer just appears in one film, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. I'd leave it in the list and expand as much as possible. Geeky Randy (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now we know that there is no more room for expansion of these roles, the only arguement for leaving them in, I think a prune of these one sentence, appear and do nothing characters is due. Palmer and Rogers are the most obvious, maybe even Sydney, even as a former victim her role is tiny and not essential to the movie plot or any prior plots since she is a new character Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter

The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light refs

That would be my fault -- the reference format the page uses is confusing to me, being from the old school, and the refs display the same whether inline or bundled in the reflist, so I left it. --Teancum (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was talking about the date formats (but I did go ahead and move them under the Ref section while I was there). :P Yeah the list-defined refs can be at first (the whole ref system is confusing at first for any new editor). Though IMO articles that use that format are so much cleaner, especially if you want to do compyediting. With the format you just name the ref and then move it under references. It's good that it's not required to be under the Ref section though. —Mike Allen 10:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi MikeAllen, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! Lunalet (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AiW Film - recent edits

From the looks of your talk page, you've been busy. Hey, when you get a minute, would you mind piping in on the post I recently added on the Alice in Wonderland Talk Page? I've already edited the statement out of the article once before, only to have it return with weak reference. I would just like other editors to pipe in before this becomes an edit war. Thanks. Emtigereyes (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Silver Chair

Thanks for your help on that but it's not over yet. It's getting exhausting. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tourist film poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tourist film poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just go ahead and delete the image? There's a new image in place and this one is not needed any longer. Why does it have to stay online for 7 days when it's not going to be used at all? —Mike Allen 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Notability" of the Alternate versions of Salt

You wrote:

>>MikeAllen (talk | contribs) (29,040 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by >>Objectivecorrector (talk); Just about all films have different >>versions on the DVD, we only write about them if they >>are particularly notable. ([[WP:TW|

This is a good point in general. But because the original theatrical version of Salt was significantly above average and somewhat "notable", I wanted to mention this, especially because at least the director's cut has a significantly different plot where the bad guys win and Salt is said to be killed, it's not that just a few scenes are made differently, the plot really has a different direction. But you are overall correct, and I will wait until December 21, 2010, when Amazon releases the DVD of the Extended Edition, even though the difference in its plot is not as significant as the Director's Cut. At that time, I might at least describe it in the production section, with only one brief sentence. Objectivecorrector (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to write about the different versions since it seems to be causing much confusion in the plot summary right now. The way you had it written seem more like an essay though especially when you said "as a general rule, this is what the Wikipedia plot summary is based on". —Mike Allen 19:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wrote the awkward sentence "as a general rule, this is what the Wikipedia plot summary is based on", in the description paragraph of the alternative versions of the film, in an effort to warn the readers not to make corrections in the plot summary on the basis of the two alternative versions of the original film. Maybe YOU should put such a sentence at the beginning of the plot summary, to warn the readers that the current plot summary already completely reflects the Theatrical Version, and that if they try to make a correction or addition, they MUST first see the Theatrical Version. It is very interesting that these recent "corrections" started only after the illegal copies of the Director's Cut were posted online!!! Until a couple of months ago, all editors were using the Theatrical Version. But note that by next week, when Amazon starts selling the Unrated Expanded Edition, you will probably see a lot more attempts to correct the Wikipedia plot summary, not only because a lot more people will buy the DVD of the Expanded Edtion compared to those who download illegal copies of the Director's Cut, but more importantly, according to the article that I mentioned, the Expanded Edition is even more different from the Theatrical Version than the Director's Cut is!!! This will be far more confusing, because in the Extended Edition, many more events are not only different but also presented in different orders!!! Thus although I will mention the different versions in the production section after I see the Expanded Edition, perhaps you should already put a warning sentence at the beginning of the plot summary immediately!!

Objectivecorrector (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I would like more opinions on this AFD if you don't mind. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock investigation

Could you offer your thoughts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Darkness2005 please. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been taken care of. I'll also keep a watch for any other dirty socks. Thanks, —Mike Allen 22:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Guardian of Light info - major need of inclusion

Apparently it's headed to the iPhone/iPod/iPad. It'll fail GAN if this is missed and someone knows about it. Here is the story, so far as I've found it. Just a heads up, since this is high priority and I don't really work on the article anymore. --Teancum (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. I guess it really is too soon for a GAN if they are still pushing out updates and versions. It has only been 3 months. I'll still address concerns on the PR and also include the above. Thanks for letting me know. —Mike Allen 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question.

I am just curious what guidelines says seven days? I couln't find in on WP:Vote or anything else similiar to that. Anyways the name as it originally was is back and I kind of recommend that the discussions that involved my closing to be deleted. Nothing significant to the consensus and it really distracts the issue. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't see why there has to be a debate on this, if he has never used the alias then it's misleading and should be never ever be the title name. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I don't have it to the right name at all. The k in Killer was supposed to be capitalized. Sorry about that. I am just out of it today. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you should probably be blocked for all of this disruption... Lol actually it's really no big deal so just relax. :) I know AFD are 7 days, so I figure that's how it was for all discussions. When a move could be controversial it's best to request a discussion. Of course I could have moved it myself and if no one moved it back or disagreed with it on the talk page it is considered consensus. —Mike Allen 03:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know right. I should be blocked! I am not used to making terrible and controversial edits. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs and machines in the Matrix series

I would like to continue improving the incubated article List of programs and machines in the Matrix series, and I started a discussion requesting comments about what edits should be made so it can be restored in the near future. Since you supported incubation, I invite you to the discussion. It can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC courtesy notice - succession boxes

As someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC or do not wish to participate, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember ever taking part in a RFC for succession boxes? —Mike Allen 04:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busy enough of late....

12 days of Janice.[1] Find me 1 minute and 10 seconds into the video. Among the many others, Isabelle by Koufax was one of my favorite video shoots.[2] Or do you also like Jolt Cola?[3] Or maybe you like creepy horror films?[4] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Wishing you a very Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
Wishing you all the very best for the season. Thanks for all your help and support this year.
Merry Christmas and may Santa be good to you! – SMasters (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Click to play!

Hey, Mike. Hope you had a Merry Christmas! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 06:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Erik, hope you did as well! —Mike Allen 08:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ding dong

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film seems to be building up requests with no replies. Please be so kind as to provided comments to those requests. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movie-censorship.com

Mike, I started discussion about movie-censorship.com at WT:FILM. Let me know what your experience was with its use at Salt. The exchange was unclear to me. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Nightmare on Elm Street- Award List

hey, i add another proper version of award list on A Nightmare on Elm Street page, and as you said; it doesn't have only single item . I'm telling you this in advance, so that you can check it. Bill william compton (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Films that need great improvement

Hi. I have already contacted co-ordinator Schmidt about such films, and he has helped contribute to improving them. Evil Things has improved greatly, as has Dark Nature, but the films Dead Wood (film), Jack Says and Jack Said are still poor, especially the latter which makes no distinction whatsoever between the film and the graphic novel, which I feel might need a seperate article. Hope you can help. FilmFan2011 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted the work of Igordebraga, you also ended up deleting the good work of the editor "71.229.41.213" which was chronologically between Igordebraga and the version you reverted to.

Note that in your effort to revert the unsourced work of a more recent editor "Igordebraga" to your previous version, you ended up deleting the excellent work (with only one error I have corrected) the editor "71.229.41.213" had made, such as very good improvements and simplifications to several sections, including the Plot, Filming/Production, The Versions (simplified and moved to the end).

Apparently, this happened because chronologically his work was between the version of Igordebraga and your work which was before the work of "71.229.41.213". (His work was so complex that it covered many sections and so I am unable to keep track and revive now, I don't have the experience to salvage his work.)

But for simplicity, after my latest addition to the work of 71.229.41.213 , in my final version (I am pasting the url of that state below), you will find the work of 71.229.41.213 salvaged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salt_%282010_film%29&diff=409680977&oldid=409667888

FROM HERE, can you surgically cancel the work of Igordebraga, WITHOUT totally deleting the work of the editor 71.229.41.213 ?

It seems that similar deletions occurred before, when in order to revert a small amount of material, the good (and sometimes massive) work of other people also got deleted.

Is there a solution for this? Because I never totally revert other people's work (I always manually edit parts), I do not know how to solve this technical problem.

Regards, Objectivecorrector (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that IP added a load of unsourced bits in the production section. No sources to verify his edits at all. Further, I did not revert their other edits to the plot. —Mike Allen 09:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter

The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Live Office

Hello, Mike Allen. You have recently advised Redirect in this AFD but you have forgotten to specify or even imply the target of redirect. Thanks. Fleet Command (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What it's already redirected to... —Mike Allen 22:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Let me clarify. When you advise redirect in AFD, it means "Delete the contents of the article but keep its name and redirect it to another name. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common themes in films

Hello, Mike Allen. You work on the film-related articles in Wikipedia, right? So, I thought I ask you: Is there any article or articles that covers common themes seen in the films? Fleet Command (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not that I can think of. You can ask the Film Project though. :-) —Mike Allen 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV season template, list or category

As a reg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, I thought I would seek your opinion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Season_article_template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you sort of stopped midstream. You apparently are concerned about the category name. Please follow along at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#Category:2010-11_Television_program_seasons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New cat

If you are going to add Category:2009-10 Television program seasons type cats they should replace Category:Television seasons, IMO because they are subcats.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK will do. —Mike Allen 04:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parent cat

Since you have commented at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#2010-11_Television_program_seasons, I ask that you please comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_6#Television_programs_by_season to help resolve the parent category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salt

You're welcome. I'm really interested in letting that reach GA status - even if the queue doesn't help. Do you think it needs anything other than developing "Critical reception" better? igordebraga ≠ 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Reception and lead should be expanded before a GA nomination. —Mike Allen 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded both sections, and am now thinking if we wait for assessment or just nominate it... anyway, can you see if what I added needs some cleanup? igordebraga ≠ 02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about an assessment, but a peer review would not hurt. Although I did fix a lot of inconsistent citations (mostly the date format), there are still a few that needs to be converted into the "February 15, 2011" format. Inconsistent citations will fail a GA review. Other than that, it's come a long way--with your help. Thanks again. —Mike Allen 04:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review is here! - igordebraga ≠ 13:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That one ref that they say is slowing down their browser, works for me. What about you? I'll go through the rest in more detail later. —Mike Allen 09:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Paxton -- Dead!?

Really?! first Casey Novak than Alex Cabot now Sonya Paxton ---Gone! :/ So very saddened and dissapointed :| Is there any references to back this up? If not I'll guess I will have to wait till I get to watch it. the Sonya Paxton Murdered sentence will stay, unfortuantely. RIP Sonya i guess.... Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to watch it... here it is. ;) —Mike Allen 00:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW -- thats all I can say. Thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers

I can understand the OCD thing (used to do that sometime in the past), but I don't know if we really need them. My thinking is that if we can link to the work, then it is not useful detail to show the publisher. (After all, the work can stay the same while publishers can change with acquisitions and so forth.) Would you reconsider having them, at least for the linked works? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to be professional here. :-P All articles I work on, I fill in the citations to the best of my ability. Is that really wrong? It just feels like something is missing if you don't add the work and publisher. Also I do think it is valuable information to know who publishes a work, without going to another page. If you don't find it useful, feel free to revert. I promise I won't edit-war with you. ;-) —Mike Allen 01:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care that much. :) I'm just going off the {{cite news}} documentation which says the field is for: "The company or organization that publishes the news source (not to be used for the name of the news source itself; see the 'newspaper' parameter). Can be (but need not be) omitted for major publications like The New York Times, but may add credibility for local papers that are part of a family of publications like The McClatchy Company." Just trying to see if I can get you to change your mind. ;) Erik (talk | contribs) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Those cite web/news documentation is outdated and flawed. I mean why should a website be italicized? I tried using </i> or '' to unitalicize a website in the work field (like for IGN, etc), but a bot comes to "cleans up". Only magazines and journals should be in italics, not websites. Oh and the archivelinks, it should have a archive=yes or no. But of course not, that's too simple.... ;) —Mike Allen 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of italics, you may be interested in the new discussion at WT:FILM. Had a tiff over formatting and templating. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed

Wazzup, since I've seen you on the Wikiproject Film, I want to request your help for check and fix errors on Rachel Weisz's article, currently on review for featured article. Hope to hear from you soon, thanks for your time.--Gduwen (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I was just wondering how you got the Ip block exempt flag on your account, Cheers. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with an ISP that uses a block of IPs that are shared with the same users. After I signed up in late 2009 I randomly kept getting soft blocked (or something) because another editor that was using the same IP as me has a long history of using sock puppets and vandalism. I contacted an administrator about it and they issued an IP Block Exception on my account. I'm not sure how it works, but I haven't accidentally gotten blocked since. —Mike Allen 01:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks because the same thing just happened to me. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi, I know you're actively involved in projects particularly Saw and was wondering if you'd be willing, when you find time, to check out either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A_Nightmare_on_Elm_Street_characters or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scream_characters or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostface_(Scream)

I've put a lot of time into them recently and would like some feedback but its difficult to get and I know you have knowledge of good quality standards on here. If you can't that's fine, thanks for reading either way Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notification

Hello, MikeAllen. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators#Taking the long view.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes Milowka

I was originally going for a delete in agreement with you, but the AFD got me thinking. Though it's only a beginning, and we'll need to use webcite.org to save them as permalinks, the Agnes Milowka website shared links to PDFs of the various media where her work was covered, and of the articles she authored. So she did receive coverage of her work prior to her death, and beyond the obituaries.

Admittedly it's quite sad that it took her death to motivate someone to write an article, but as she has set unique diving records and has had coverage, I believe we're looking at a decent presumption of notability and that more coverage exists. This has caused me to change my mind. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As always I'm impressed with your research and quick editing skills. Didn't mean to make the AFD as "clean up" tool, but glad it happened so her article won't get deleted and the AFD will be on record. I withdrew the nomination. Thanks for time on the article. —Mike Allen 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to help. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hoffman

If there's no comment next to the status, then people will keep adding "presumably dead" to it, and we will have to keep reverting it back. I think it's important to have some kind of notice there. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is he "presumably dead" by the filmmakers? If so, perhaps adding a citation (from the DVD commentary) will work. —Mike Allen 03:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. When I reverted his edit, I reverted yours too. It was a mistake. I don't know if the filmmakers flat out said he died or not. If not and a citation can't be properly included, leaving a hidden note should be enough. —Mike Allen 03:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you could lend me some advice

I'm working on the List of Scream characters and like you I agree that characters with no real purpose or info shouldn't be worth listing. I removed Steve Orth (the guy who gets killed in the beginning) but I've since found some very minor information that his actor tried out for Billy Loomis before being cast in that smaller role. Is that worth bringing his entry back or is it too much like trivia? I can't decide. Same thing for Rebecca Gayhearts character in Scream 2, she's barely there but she tried out for 3 major roles before getting the smaller one. Can't decide if its notable information.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably be best to just add it to the Scream 2 article. Like under the "Cast" section -- since there isn't a "Casting" section in prose. I wish we had some real guidelines on how to do character pages. —Mike Allen 03:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using List of Uncharted characters as a base since its a featured article, obviously not for the segmenting because it uses main and enemies but thats where I got hte idea for the cast photo and the intro. Shouldn't be long now though for Scream, I've done Ghostface mostly, Sidney needs a little, Series needs a little, then just overhaul the films. Be pretty good if I can get them all to GA.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls Club format and rules

Hey buddy, I tried my best to fix the issues. If you can spot any more so I can fix them or if none are found, can you remove the template? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copy edited it. Fixed the "contradiction" with the television sets. Who placed the tag there? —Mike Allen 04:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion from regs needed

I am pinging you because you have over 150 edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and have edited the page this month. I have gotten no responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Template:WikiProject_Awards and need some to resume a major cleanup project I have been doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]