User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Flag icons

Please do not continue to add flagicons to film infoboxes. I spend a fair amount of time removing that sort of cruft, and really don't appreciate people adding it where it wasn't. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, as long as you're delinking dates in infoboxes, the release year can be linked to the "year in film" article using [[XXXX in film|XXXX]] or {{fy|XXXX}}, which expands to the same thing. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald, flags are a well known symbol common on film pages for release dates. Why do you remove them? WP:MOSICON allows their use in tables. Since the "year in film" template splits opinion, I will continue to ignore it, neither removing or adding them to articles. Sorry. Philip Cross (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An infobox is not a table, and WP:MOSFILM, the guideline for the style of film articles, says clearly: Some users like to use flag icons instead of country names. However, this should be avoided, as flags are less recognizable than country names.. Please stop adding flags to film article infoboxes. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not added any more since our previous exchange. Philip Cross (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Baiting"

Wasn't really baiting was it? Sure we can guess people's opinion, but that's not really guessing it is it? As a professional wrestling fan and a reader of Mr. Hitchens I'm interested to find out his views, I think I can guess as well but we may be surprised.Luther Hull (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not take much for Peter Hitchens to loose his temper and behave impolitely. Philip Cross (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're being honest then that's his problem and not mine, I should be allowed to ask questions without fear of being flamed, I don't believe I should take responsibility for "baiting" because of the irrational behaviour of another editor. Luther Hull (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong

Hello, Philip Cross. Your interest in the Anna May Wong article is appreciated. However you should note that it is a Featured Article. As such it has undergone a very thorough review as to style, format, content, etc. Please do not make minor stylistic changes, as the article should be considered to already be in a somewhat stable state. Dekkappai (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not see 'featured article' status as meaning articles cannot be edited, I have done so without previous complaint. My changes here are not minor. The chronology of the summary was scrambled and it had Wong becoming a fashion icon after her Europe sojourn. It also lumped Piccadilly with the early American films, whereaas it was made during her first period in Europe, a differnt chapter of her life. I could also quibble with the description of Riefenstahl as "controversial" ahead of the reasons for her notoriety. I find edit wars tiresome, so I will stop. Philip Cross (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't engage in edit-warring either, Philip, and am willing to discuss this, and change to your way. My thoughts are that Feature Article status indicates that the article has been thoroughly reviewed by many editors, several times through the development of the article. By all means a Feature Article can still be edited, but changes to style-- which was gone over and over with a fine-toothed comb-- do not seem contructive to me. Indeed, it seems to me an invitation to erode the quality of the article-- not that your edits have done so. Personally, I have no preference as to the date format. In fact, I am currently using the date format you are using. But this is not the format that was used throughout the article, which will create inconsistency. Also, again, it seems to me that Featured Article status implies that stylistic considerations have been discussed and settled. About your more substantive re-arranging, above: I am not entirely happy with the way the article turned out either. But that was the product of the FA process, during which many editors wrote and re-wrote (and changed back) every section of the article. Not that more cannot be added, but it seems to me that simply re-arranging the current article after it has passed thorough review, and then continuing to display that FA star is a bit dishonest, as it can easily become a very different article from the one that passed FA. I will ask around to get input from other editors who were involved in the development of the article. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Philip. I consulted with another editor on this. He agrees that the date change is unnecessary, but that your re-arrangement of the lead would not affect FA status. As we all three think this is an improvement, I've reinstated it, and removed the POV adjective before Riefenstahl. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

John Updike

Thank you for deleting that scurrilous material from the biography of John Updike. John L. Barlow (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Harold Rosen

Thanks for moving it as you did. Very sensible. I noticed the comment above about Michael and the SWP above. Oddly enough, the last time he appeared at the Marxism gig, he talked about Harold, who died soon afterwards. I might have written something before but missed the obits because I was away. Unfortunately, it's much easier to write about people who've died for Wikipedia.Sjwells53 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sada Abe

Hi, Philip. But that is what is meant-- it was premeditated. She contemplated the severing of the genitalia before she did it. She admitted and wrote that she did so. That the crime was judged "second degree", and that she got off with such a short sentence is unusual, and is commented in the sources. If you want to call it something other than "the act" (which I agree could be interpreted to mean just the "sex act"), feel free to do so. But I do feel that calling it a "response" implies explanation(s) which are different (that I recall anyway-- I worked on this in June last year) from what Sada wrote, or what secondary sources have given. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for help on Eugene O'Neill conflict

As someone who has contributed to the Eugene O'Neill article, perhaps you would be willing to look at the (rather one-sided) discussion on that article's talk page regarding Emerson7's deletion of cited materials, Ah, Wilderness NOT O'Neill's only comedy. I would like to have a Request for Comment process initiated, but must have at least one other editor to have contributed to the discussion before an RfC can be started. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed you have created a number of biography pages. I created one and it is up for deletion. Care to opine?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_M._Levin_(2nd_nomination) thanks Mwalla (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

thanks for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwalla (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new policy

As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:

A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.

Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009#Proposed new policy. Don't just say

• Support.

or

• Oppose.

Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

James Cagney

Hey there, just thought I'd let you know that James Cagney has been promoted to Good Article! Thanks for all your help on this article! Featured article, here we come (eventually)! --GedUK  09:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jacqueline Rose

Sorry, I was reading through the article and couldn't see where she specifically criticises Zionism in that article. For my peace of mind could you quote the specific piece of text? Thanks in advance :) I Grave Rob_§talk♥^stalk§ 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added an earlier interview reference to support the statement in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, and also for fixing the restored paragraph as it was a bit of an attack. Your contribution and dedication to this article for several years is commendable. On a side note have you thought about using MiszaBot III to archive old sections of your talk page? There is even a guide, or if you need help I would be glad to assist. ☺ I Grave Rob_§talk♥^stalk§ 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking

Are you aware of the ArbCom injuction against mass delinking of dates pending the resolution of this case? I bring it up because you seem to be removing date links in a lot of your recent edits. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not. Thanks! Philip Cross (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Orwell Prize

Hi Philip, just thought I'd mention that the Orwell debate is on YouTube [1] if you're interested. Nick Cohen (part 2) is a bit tired and emotional but some good points were made by the speakers I thought. Is that you who keeps peeking at me on your user page? (cute!) Great widget. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 18:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting

Hi Philip Cross

Please note that MOS:DATE at Strong national ties to a topic provides that articles on to subjects associated with a country (such as citizens and residents) should have dates formatted per the convention in that country. Please stop changing date formats in contravention of this guideline.

Thanks, Bongomatic 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: removal

I'm not running a bot to remove them, just doing it manually. If there's a complaint about it though I'll stop. Wizardman 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Cosgrave

Stub class? You sure about that? jnestorius^(talk) 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, the body of the article has 589 words, high enough for 'start' rather than 'stub'. Philip Cross (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Christine Finn

Thanks for working on editing the Christine Finn wikipedia page, I'm just the person who started off that page and run the fansite dedicated to her but I want to point out that Rudolph Cartier first worked with Christine Finn in a televised play the same year that he made Quatermass and the Pit and thus it was not several years earlier, so I would have to say no to that alteration.

I admit that it might have been easier to know that a few months ago from reading the wiki page, but someone decided to simplify the page and delete all the film and TV information leaving people to visit IMDB instead.

Also I'm not sure whether I would say that her film career didn't develop further as mentioned in the page, maybe you are right to state that for the sake of Wikipedia since nothing else has publicly come to the surface and it seems highly unlikely that anything further will turn up, but at the moment I'm still researching the career of this little known woman for the highly unlikely

best wishes

Wmmvrrvrrmm / Dominic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmmvrrvrrmm (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I confused Cartier's 1953 production of Wuthering Heights with A Midsummer Night's Dream from November 1958. I have reverted. Good look on your researches. Philip Cross (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Musicals

Hi. I noticed that you added quotation marks to the song names in the list of songs at Ever Green. It's OK with me, but the musicals project does not usually do it in the song lists (although they do it in the synopses), and so other editors at the project may revert it. But in any case, you can save yourself some time by not worrying about it. All the best, either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates in Kurosawa article

If you're going to add dates, may I suggest adding them to the other films as well. Currently, the format is inconsistent as some films have dates while others do not.

Thank you. --Stepusual (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The article leaves a strict chronology after Rashomon and thus to date Ran (1985) followed by Throne of Blood (1956 in Japan), for example, is more likely to disorientate the reader, rather than give them a sense of time progressing as when the chronology is observed. I kept in the date for Red Beard when I realised this, as it marks a key point in Kurosawa's life and career. Philip Cross (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)