User talk:Erik/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

The Concert for New York City

I sourced the information that you added diff, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction

I'd like to hear your opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction, given I respect and applaud your work with film articles and WP:FILMS, which in my opinion has the best approach to fiction-related topics on Wikipedia (which is, in my view, basically ignoring the "fiction" aspect and focusing on the subject as a "production" instead of a "story", because relying on primary sources to help asset notability and rationalize subarticles is all sorts of messed up). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the invitation, but I must decline to get involved. I've lurked a few discussions about notability and fiction, and I can't say I have much taste for it, especially how long it has gone. The sides seem to have dug in long ago, and I can't foresee the saber-rattling ending anytime soon. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Erik,
I was wondering if you could help me with something...
On my User page on the subcategory section "Other quotes" of the category "Favorite quotes", the wikitable wont show.
Could you look and tell me how to fix it—all I see is this: {
Thanx!
ATC . Talk 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Year in film

I started, very briefly, a discussion about Template talk:Filmyear about the use of the template and its contradiction with WP:EGG. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Gentle guidance needed for new user Shetc

Erik, a new user Shetc seems intent on adding an unknown actor Steve Hiller to the credits of Up in the Air (film). His only contributions are these edits. I reverted his original edits and left him a gentle reminder on his discussion page. I do not wish to get into an edit war with a new user, so I will let someone else revert his last edit. When you have a chance, you may wish to remind him that his edits do not meet the standards of film articles. I will expect your response, if any, on your talk page. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Sri Lankan Tamil cinema task force

Just wondering what you want to do with this. WP:MfD? PC78 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked the editor to add {{db-author}} templates to them. MfD is too much red tape. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club

I'm sorry but I don't have access to the journals to really be of any use. I'll try and save the article from deletion though. It just needs more neutrality and some copyediting to make it less of an academic essay in itself. A lot of the people on AfD just like deleting stuff rather than actually contributing anything! I'm an inclusionist Francium12 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Depreciation of "Future" templates

This seems to have passed me by; don't know if you saw it: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates#Proposal. It might have been useful if the Wikiprojects that use the template variations had been informed of the discussion, but it's on the CD list, and I can't say I disagree a whole lot with the proposal. Steve T • C 11:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw it (when Conti mentioned it here). I'm on the same page as you; I can't really disagree with their logic. It's more a matter of tradition that I've liked {{Future film}} templates. When it comes to WikiProject Films, though, when the template is removed, we need to ensure that the articles from which it's removed have the Upcoming films category (which has been automatically added by the template). Thanks for the heads-up, though! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion about a screenshot in Meet the Parents

Hi!

I added a screenshot the above film in order to illustrate, what I believe to be, a somewhat important aspect of the film and the actor chosen for the main role. I used the screenshot you uploaded to Fight Club as a reference when adding my image so I wanted to see if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my image, it's use and it's rationale to see if there are any glaring problems with it being used the way I intended it to.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your taking a page from my Fight Club screenshot! :) In reviewing the image, I am not sure if its rationale is strong enough to stand up to the FAC process. It suffices for B-Class, though I am not sure how well it holds up to GA-Class. While the caption is informative, the screenshot does not truly inform the reader of Stiller's improvisation. A video clip would be more worthwhile, but that would need even stronger rationale, like the scene being one of the most important in the film. Comedy films won't amount to a lot of great screenshots unless the comedy is physical. Science fiction films have greater potential because there are elements that can't be easily envisioned by readers. Fight Club, in this case, has a thematic application. It's two men sitting casually in the bathroom, but a way to perceive it is how "normal" is that for today's film audiences? So it's pretty illustrative of perception of homoeroticism. The Meet the Parents screenshot does not have anything that significant. Any serious commentary seems to be focused on the Jewish or nursing background of the character, but I can't recall any moments that could be illustrated by a screenshot. That's my take, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input and thanks for providing a point of reference for screenshots as you did in the Club :)
So, basically, as much as the rationale may not be strong enough, you think that a stronger rationale still might not make up for the fact that the actual image is not illustrative or important enough to enhance the readers comprehension of the subject?
The point about physical comedy is an excellent one and, sadly (from that perspective), this film develops most of its laughs from character and plot development rather than gags and physical humor so I may be at a loss there to provide a suitable image. At this point, I guess, I'll explore further options as far as screenshots that are more illustrative or maybe even the video option but I'll make sure to have all of my bases covered before I even attempt that route.
Since I am planning to take this to GA stage sometime soon, would you suggest that I remove that image immediately or do you think it still serves a useful purpose in a B-class article? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I would advise removing the image. If you do plan on improving the article to Good Article status, you may come across commentary which could be supported by visual aid. I'm pretty familiar with film resources, so if you want any help with accessing resources, let me know. Sometimes it helps to expand an article without worrying about images, then we can look back and determine what could be added. Steve and I are sort of doing this for American Beauty (film), although there's greater likelihood of fitting non-free content somewhere. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess I will remove the image, then. I do want to add some visual aid at some point but I guess the article can do without it for now.
As far as the resources are concerned, I might take you up on that offer. I've had a bit of a hard time locating sufficient resources to expand the production section so I would really appreciate getting a hand in finding some information on development, production and casting. If there is some material you are able to obtain (no rush, though) I would be very grateful. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag and assess drive

If interested, could you weigh in at the discussion for the tag and assess drive so we can get this started at the beginning of September? Thanks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the individual issues have now been organized in a recap, please weigh in if you can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: District 9

Any chance you can take more of a leadership role on the talk page? A roadmap to GA might help, explaining the bare minimum reviewers will be looking for here. I think Uker could really help improve the article if he had some focus and we weren't always reverting each others edits without knowing why. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

One other thing: I'm not really up on the films project, but I assume you have some kind of barnstar awards you give out to editors who help improve articles. I think User:UKER deserves one for his commitment to District 9, and I would appreciate it if your project would consider giving him one. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I will see what I can do. I only have a passing interest in the article but it's pretty impressive how much attention it has received. The article could use more meat, though, and the discussions on the talk page could be more moderated. Let me see what can take place, but the barnstar that you mentioned can be given to anyone by anyone. You're welcome to do it, too, since you've had more interaction than me. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Understood, but you invited him to the films project and he joined. And, his dedication to improving District 9 should be rewarded. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS

Hi User:Erik,
As you may know The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie was nominated for FAC status, but was currently closed, because their is still minor MOS that needs to be fixed.
I was working with User:Matthewedwards, but he is currently moving and doesn't have any internet connection.
So, I looked at the policies at WP:MOS and also looked at featured articles that were films.
I fixed up the lead section for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie and am wondering your opinion on it.
Also, in the article their is repeats and don't know what should be repeated and what shouldn't be repeated.
I wanted to know if you could detect some of this, plus other MOS that you find.
Also, someone mentioned a problem with post-production because it explained an award that was received at a film festival.
The reason why I did that was because television executive Albie Hecht saw the film there that day and brought it to Nickelodeon to develop into a series; meaning I had to add about the award there.
So I thought "Post-production" meant that everything that took place after filming, but an FAC evaluator complained that it doesn't belong their.
What do you think?
Thanx!
ATC . Talk 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It may help to read the Wikipedia article on post-production. In the case of the article, the paragraph should be moved to the top of "Releases and debuts". The lead section seems okay to me. What were the specific issues with it? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanx! I did what you suggested for the "Releases and debuts" section. The specific MOS I referred to included, e.g. plurals: 's, s', s. I don't remember exactly but I think Matthewedwards said something about verbs, tenses, and pro-nouns that weren't great. Also, I'm not the "best" copyeditor and after adding information in the "Releases and debuts" it needs some copyediting and wanted to know if you could help with some copyediting in that section. Thanx again! ATC . Talk 20:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Erik

I appreciate your acknowledgement of my contributions to film articles and I am deeply flattered you think I would make a good coordinator. However, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for slightly less than a year and I'm not certain I'm ready at this time to accept what I view as a major undertaking and a large responsibility. If you still feel I'm qualified the next time elections are held, encourage me again and I may consider accepting the challenge. Thank you for your confidence in me, and rest assured you have my vote in the upcoming election! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to follow that sentiment. I really appreciate the motion but I don't think I am prepared to be a coordinator. I really haven't done major edits to GAs or FAs, and I only have about a year of experience total on Wikipedia. I will definitely consider this in the future but it seems a little preemptive for me this year. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses! I hope you will both reconsider because I do not think either of you are under-qualified. We have coordinators who have different kinds of qualifications. Not all of us have Good or Featured Articles, and not all of us have full technical understanding of the {{Film}} templates and other such templates. I contacted both of you because you both appear to me to have learned quickly through involvement and willingness to ask questions and having the mannerisms to do both well. Being a coordinator is no insurmountable task; our discussions can be seen at WT:FILMC. I think it was a slow term because not all of us were so active (perhaps the summertime is to blame), and the input of active editors, through contributions and collaborative feedback, are well welcomed. That will be all I have to say about the matter, and if you do not change your minds, I hope you will do so for the next term. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 23:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Hi. Would you please weigh in on this dicussion? Thanks! --uKER (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator position

I appreciate the offer, but I doubt I'll actually have the time for it once I secure myself a job. Since I just moved to Michigan, I've been looking for a job, and if I get the one I interviewed for last week then I'll probably be able to put less time into Wikipedia in general, let alone a position with real responsibilities. Again, I appreciate the consideration.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I would love to collaborate with you and Alien again in the future - definitely if Nolan does another Batman film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

How would you suggest we deal with the category "Original Song Score or Adaptation Score" that was given at the Academy Awards for a while? The awards are included at Academy Award for Best Music (Scoring), but it wasn't given for the duration of awards. Put it just below the Best Score, and link it back to the same page? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For now, I think linking it to the same page is best; just pipe it with that proper category name. Might be a stubby article to start in the near future. How many years was the category in existence? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Aw geez. The Academy has done a lot of things with that score category. Score of a Dramatic Picture and Scoring of a Musical Picture, Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture and Scoring of a Musical Picture (quite a few years), Original Music Score and Scoring of Music-adaptation or treatment, Original Score and Score of a Musical Picture-original or adaptation, Original Score and Original Song Score, Original Score and Original Song Score and Adaptation, Original Score and Original Song Score and Its Adaptation or Adaptation Score, Original Score and Adaptation Score, Best Original Dramatic Score and Best Original Musical or Comedy Score and now it is Best Original Score. They couldn't make up their minds, so I'm thinking neither should we. Just leave them all on one page, since they are all variations on the same basic awards. I'll keep working on the 80s if you want and I'll let you know when I'm ready to move on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll finish up the 1980s some time in the next 2-3 days. Should I move on to the 1990s or...? And how are you coming along? :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know how you find the time or patience... I'm on a laptop without a mouse, so it's kind of slow going. :( I move to my place this weekend, though, and will set up my PC there. Maybe I can generate real results by then! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 01:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You take someone who is basically homebound due to health issues, add a lot of boredom and a project to work on, praise the concept of copy & paste and couple that with needing to fill some time while listening/semi-watching late night television and one never knows what can be accomplished. And I have a huge old HP keyboard that is the most comfortable thing to use that I've ever found, so it's not that much of a problem. By the way, I noted and incorporated the changes you made to the ones I'd finished. This is basically my contribution effort to WP:FILM. I'm not huge on writing film articles - actor biographies are my specialty. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI FYI

I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Inurhead continued incivility and edit warring at The Hurt Locker regarding the issues at The Hurt Locker and with Inurhead. FYI in case you wish to add any comments about the situation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club main page

Hey Erik, you should really be putting Fight Club up at WP:TFA/R at some point soon (tomorrow is the earliest you can nominate it) just to be sure that no-one nominates another film article between now and Fight Club's ten-year anniversary. If you haven't written a 1,200-character blurb already, here's my take, thrown together just to see how it might look. Use, discard or edit at will. :-) Steve T • C 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the blurb you provided! I doubt I'll make significant changes to it, though. I'm reviewing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and am trying to understand the system. From what I can tell, there are only three points for Fight Club, so it cannot replace any of the five existing requests. I listed the film article at the "pending" sub-page, and I assume I'll wait until September 18 (when Samuel Johnson's early life is removed/displayed) to list it there? Provided that nobody comes in with an article with more points and bumps it off. Should I edit the blurb in your sandbox or mine? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I decided to rewrite the blurb to be more about the film's violence, which I think is the chief aspect of it for the blurb's purpose, tying into its reception. It's hard to cover the other aspects without sounding disjointed. What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I didn't notice the five-article rule. Should be OK if you shove it in as soon as Dr Johnson goes live. The revised blurb looks OK, though IMO it might be leaning too heavily towards plot description. YMMV. I count four points, btw. 1 point: significant contributor without a TFA. 2 points: 10-year anniversary. 1 point: no film article within 3 months. Never mind, I didn't spot AvP. :-) Steve T • C 17:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I realized the violence was not just about the fights, but also Project Mayhem. Seemed to necessitate some more detail to understand the reception for the blurb. I have not really read blurbs... is there any particular way they manage to cover different aspects of a topic within the limit? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
From what I can see, they tend to act more as a tease than traditional leads do, so it might not be necessary to go into what exactly Project Mayhems aims were. Perhaps just say it's a "militant anti-materialist organization"? (Militant might be too strong, but you get the idea). Another way of reducing the word count would be to be really brutal with redundancies; for example, save for Bonham Carter you have the actors' names twice each. Is there a way for the mentions to be merged, giving you space to add in something else you might want in there? Steve T • C 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

With the newly scheduled TFAs an article lost a bunch of points and you should be able to nominate Fight Club now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Please let me know if you have any suggestions about the blurb or my handling of the process. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 02:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator

Say, thanks very much. I'm flattered. But I'm worried that I may not have the time. Looking at the responsibilities, they are fairly extensive. Also, do you think I really know the ropes well enough?Stetsonharry (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Message to Hell in a Bucket

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Hell in a Bucket has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. There is a number between 1 and 3 it's called 2. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Hell in a Bucket
If you are counting in any roving 24 hours period I can see that part. However you should wait until the 4th time I do so. The first edit is technically a null then after someone reverts me it would be four. I agree that it may not make sense but I had a recent occasion to hear about this. I believe it's in my archive, if you have superceding info I 'd love to see it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Extended content

For future ref, to file a 3RR you need the first version reverted to, then 2 reverts, a 3RR warning, an attempt to discuss the revert on the talkpage, the third revert (4th edit) then the fourth revert. The fourth revert (fifth edit) is the point at which a report is filed, and you have to avoid making more than three edits yourself. Shimon Yanowitz never got to the fifth edit, so could not have a 3RR report filed, however his edits were disruptive anyway. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok so to understand what you are saying it takes 5 to violate the rule?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, not to some admins, certainly not. But to take it to the noticeboard, the user has to have reverted again after their final warning for 3. So, sort of. It's 5 if they're adding the content (since the addition isn't a revert), 4 if they're trying to revert someone else's addition. --King ÖÖmie III 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok never knew that one, thanks for letting me know. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of a counting/fencepost kind of thing. --King ÖÖmie III 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

One note -- you can warn about imminent 3RR violations before the 3rd revert, so that might slightly affect the timing here. Still, the 4th revert is required for there to be a violation. It doesn't have to be the fourth revert of the same information, just the same page, and consecutive reverts are generally counted as a single one (iow, if someone undoes 6 edits, someone else edits, and then they undo that one as well, that's two reverts, not seven). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the assessment. In your three edits, you reversed the actions of Mdiamante twice and of JpGrB once. If you had reversed any other editor's action on that article after being warned of 3RR, that would be a fourth revert and grounds to file a report. Your initial addition of reboot-related content preceded these reverts. In any case, this is in the past, so a report will not be filed. We can focus on discussion on the talk page, but I ask you to be more polite in your exchanges with other editors. Maybe figure out a different way to present it? For example, we can sidestep the actual use of the term "reboot" and revise the lead section to suggest that it is the revival of the film franchise in a new direction. Or this wording could be included in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Two notes

FWIW, I added my support to the Fight Club "Today's featured article" consideration. I've told you before, but it bears repeating, it's a great article. Okay, that's one note.

Second note: I'm a little behind my estimate, but I'm about to move on to the 1990 Academy Awards. If you notice anything I'm not doing right, please let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your support! From what I could tell, you seem to be on track. I have not really been able to get into the awards table proliferation business yet as I am still not quite set up at my new place. So don't feel compelled to do tables now... may be more motivating if we can do them alongside one another. :) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalema

No problem! I've added one more cat. I don't know much about the plot about this film so more specific cats probably can't be added now. Also, since I haven't seen it, imdb says it's an english-language film but why would it then be pushed for a "Foreign Language" film award at the Oscars? I'm not an expert on Oscar info, so I left that cat out for now. Without the plot, I can't add too many more specifics about genre or theme cats for this film. Good job with the article though! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it at some point as well. Sorry that I couldn't help further with the cats. Perhaps one of the reviews of the film mention the language? Or possible press releases from an official website or studio? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

District 9

Your comments on the District 9 article were interesting and I would encourage you to try and find a review or academic paper that reiterates the points you were trying to make so that you could reinclude them in the article because despite your points being clever they will not survive without citations to back them up. Best of luck -- Horkana (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Powers given to government (or perhaps seized by it) presumably for benign purposes soon facilitate the South African government attempted manipulation and marginalization of the aliens and some humans sympathetic to the aliens' plight. This represents a common theme in human power systems across history, including apartheid systems of South Africa; this chronological sequence of apartheid era laws granting powers to the government indicates many parallels. The government, or its corporate representative exercising with governmental authority, abuses its powers in several forms: the seizure of private property, abuse of child protective laws to grant itself a right for search and seizure of property, forced weapons seizure as a means to control the population, forced resettlement, experimentation on live aliens including apparent vivisection, summary executions, manipulation of information and a complicit media. Unit 731 indicates some parallels here in human history.

Wasn't me. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism awards

I understand completely why you would prefer prose over a list of awards. Do you think, though, there may be a benefit to having a list in a high profile article, especially one that may have won a number of awards? I know this film hasn't won many awars (yet, at least), but I'm thinking of articles such as Juno where, to me personally, the list seems easier to read and easier to absorb that amount of information. I'm not disagreeing with the conversion of my list to prose (actually, I think it looks pretty good the way you wrote it) but I just wanted to get your thoughts on whether some information (such as a list) wouldn't be better served in a raw format, not much unlike an infobox. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My perspective of how to write such sections is that if there are many awards, then a list or a table is warranted (e.g., American Beauty (film)#Awards and honors). At this point, though, there are just awards from Venice, and we do not know if the documentary is good enough to win many more to entail a list or a table. When a film does not have as many awards (e.g., Apt Pupil (film)#Awards), then prose is a better way to present. To put it another way, it is easy to write compelling prose about a handful of awards, but when there are many awards, we lose that ability to writing compelling prose, basically repeating the same statements over and over. If Capitalism garners more than a handful, then we can convert back to the list or make a table. What do you think? Would that work? (Sounds like we need to write out MOS:FILM#Awards and honors...) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You know, that makes perfect sense. I thought about the possibility of different structure for films with a large number of awards vs the ones with a smaller number and I was thinking about bringing that up to policy level. I will try to create a preliminary draft and present it for discussion over at WT:FILMS and the MOS talk page.
Thanks for the input! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No bother

Yeah that's cool, I see where you're coming from. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: RAMBO

Ah dude! Sorry man! But they wouldnit let me post it on imdb, so i had to post it here! Sorry dude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podruznik (talk • contribs) 17:48, September 24, 2009

Eugene Khumbanyiwa

Thanks for your efforts to improve the article, and for your reasoned comments at the deletion discussion. It's a pleasure doing business with you. JohnInDC (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You, too! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jerusalema

Updated DYK query On September 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jerusalema, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It has been a while since my last DYK! :) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your invitation to join (in the remote past)

Hi Erik,
You asked me some time back about joining the Films Project. I'm of two minds. I am an old-time IMDb researcher. So that's compatible.

But I'm currently between jobs, so I work on WP just to relax and contribute to something productive. It's probably wise right now for me to resist the temptation to take on more side projects.

So, I'm not without interest, but I should probably direct my focus elsewhere.

What sort of things had you in mind back when you extended your offer to me?

Sincerely, Varlaam (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)

It may be of interest of you to look at the {{WPFILMS Announcements}} template, particularly the "Articles needing attention" section. In addition, feel free to drop by WT:FILM to see what kind of discussions are going on! Mainly, though, just choose whatever editing path interests you the most; that's the way to contribute the most. :) Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's a good suggestion.
I'm not sure what you might have noticed me working on back then. I discovered this dormant page List of films based on war books back in March. It was 30K in size. I saw there were some titles missing. Now it's around 600K and split into 8 or 9 subpages. It just happens to merge a bunch of my interests, films, literature, history, foreign languages. I pull film data out of several other languages of WP.
Thanks a lot for the invitation. Varlaam (talk)

TFA

Talk to Raul654 (talk · contribs) about Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2009 or comment at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Me & templates

Thanks for fixing my goof. I have two lines for times like these. The first is from The Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Coupled with a quote from a Frank Zappa song that my ex, Mr. LaMar, used to sing to me when I screwed up: "I am a moron and this is my wife..." Reason #623 why I divorced him. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD format; footnotes

FYI -- there is a discussion at [1] as to whether or not to allow the use of the all-numeric YYYY-MM-DD format in footnotes/references.

I'm mentioning it to you in the event that you would like to join in the discussion or follow it, as I recognize that this is an issue you have been interested in in the past. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I said my piece there. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing (waves from the other side of the argument).--Epeefleche (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Inglourious Basterds

Just took a pass at the plot. Whatcha think? Cliff smith talk 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's really admirable! I have not had a chance to see the film yet, but I do remember how long this section was. Well done! Now, you have to make sure it stays within this range as long as the film is in theaters, not to mention when it comes out on home video... ;) Let me know if you want help with resources for other parts of that article; not sure if you're dedicated to its overall improvement or not. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've seen it twice, and it's one of my favorites this year. Sure, I'll keep an eye on it. I might go further with improvements, but I think I'll wait for it to leave the theaters to do so. Cliff smith talk 16:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Links

Thanks. I was aware of the references, but hadn't thought to add it to the actor main page. I'll do that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if you're aware of this and this. I'm not aware that either are in use and thought perhaps they needed to be deleted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity

Hey, Erik. Saw you did a small edit to the "Paranormal Activity" page and it reminded me to contact you. I did my best to beef up and source the Wikipedia site for "Paranormal Activity". You think you could give me any pointers or criticisms or anything? You can respond on my Talk page or yours. Up to you! Thanks! TabascoMan77 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, long time no see! Hope you are doing well. In reviewing the article, it looks like you are off to a good start! I would encourage you to put all production-related details under a "Production" section because pre-production, filming, and post-production are all part of the general production cycle. I would also revise the citations so it shows in "References" the works where these articles were published, like ShockTillYouDrop.com or Los Angeles Times. The "Critical reception" section needs sample reviews; I suggest following the ones at Metacritic. Also, the "Cast" section could be moved above the "Release" and "Critical reception" sections. You may also want to look at the article guidelines for films if you have not already. Feel free to ask me any questions! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Election

I have updated all of the respective pages based on the results. Since you will be serving as lead again, I figured I let you greet all the new coordinators. We definitely should make the T&A drive the first priority, and even if we don't get it started at the first of the month, we should try and aim for the first week. That way I can still just mention it in the newsletter instead of having to send a message to all members twice. We should also be doing a roll call soon since when I did the election notices, I left notes on ~20-30 talk pages that only consisted of our monthly newsletter and disputed FUR messages. If those editors are no longer active on Wikipedia, it would be good to update the list so it would help to reduce the delivery time for messages. Anyway, congrats on another term, and let's hope for another successful term in further improving the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for making the changes following the election's conclusion! I wrote a message welcoming the coordinators old and new, and in agreement with you, I mentioned the tag & assess drive as the first priority. I was thinking that we need to re-summarize the drive-related discussion both to help new faces and to better focus on what specifics to figure out. If you can extract any consensus from comments made during the previous term, feel bold to do so, and whatever else is still up in the air, we can discuss to move forward with the drive. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, can you clarify about your roll call proposal? I thought that we already removed inactive members from the list of participants. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe the last roll call was back in August 2008; we usually do it annually. We moved all of the members' names to the inactive list and then they readded their names if they still considered themselves active with the project. This helps to prevent sending out messages to editors who joined Wikipedia, edited for a few hours, signed on as a member, and then never returned again. Although it's great to see our current list of members, it's beneficial to see an active list. I'll set up the T&A drive details now, and we can go from there. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your continuing the lead coordinator position! You and Nehrams2020 both make me feel a part of this project where, if you recall, I didn't so much before. I go through the WP:ACTOR rolls about every 6 months and move members who haven't edited in the past 6 months to the inactive rolls. I may have done that once on this one, but I can't be sure. I wish that project was as organized and essential as this one, but I think we manage to keep it semi-going. Looking forward to another productive 6 months! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I am hoping for a more productive term than the last one. I am glad you feel welcomed; I have always seen WikiProject Films as a community. It's great to see new faces as coordinators, and hopefully these editors will grow and pass on their wisdom. I wish that this could be a WikiProject of Dreams (if you build it, they will come) but it feels like we are solid on structure and just need to consider more proactive outreach and collaboration strategies. Do you think it would be too weird to contact film studies professors to find out if they would be interested in assigning film article write-ups to their students? :P Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
In theory, not at all. Having said that, I come across a lot of what can only be described as term papers or essays being pasted into articles. But in theory, it's a workable idea, especially on films that don't get good coverage. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A roll call is certainly due; IIRC the last one was done during the Septemer 2008 coordinators election. I know last term Giro was keen to do this for the task forces as well, and I think that's smart -- it would be good to know how active they really are. May as well do the lot all at once. PC78 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lion King

You mentioned on Talk:Nala (The Lion King) that the series needs a franchise article, and I completely agree. I was wondering if you were planning on working on that or knew who might be interested in it? I'm disinclined to work on most Disney-related articles because of a certain vandal, though I'm happy to participate in discussions and offer advice (and could help with a quick starting of the article if someone else is willing to keep working on it after its going). Would such an article be better placed at The Lion King (with the film moved to The Lion King (movie), or the franchise at The Lion King (franchise) with the film at the main name? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we need to move the film article; it seems to me to be the primary topic, particularly over the franchise. I started some work at User:Erik/The Lion King (franchise). I'll have to incorporate the relevant section from The Lion King and figure out how to give it an overall feel. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 11:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

List of overweight actors in United States cinema

You edited this article. This is a friendly notice that your input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of overweight actors in United States cinema. This information is provided without any request that you support or oppose the deletion of the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Film awards_task_force.
Message added 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim1357 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Drive

It looks like you've been busy the last few days, but when you get the chance, can you comment at the summary I posted for the drive? The main thing that's going to hold this off is that if we're going to be adding a C-class we should consult with other members of the project to make sure there is consensus. If there is, we'll need to restructure the drive and the assessment requirements for a new class (as well as format the banner, cats, etc. and remove the A/Future classes). We should try to get this moving along as we're eating into our six months and it would be great to get on with the assessments. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I will try to get back to you. I've been kind of touch-and-go lately. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:peer review#The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Hey Erik, I was wondering if you could take a look at The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article as it didn't fit the criteria for WP:FAC yet.
I was wondering if you could look out for things that might be helpful for when I re-nominate again; anything in particular that you can spot out.
Thanx!
ATC . Talk 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

"Core article with 50th anniversary on June 16, 1960" I'm just assuming this was a mistake and should say 2010. Cheers 150.176.164.16 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was! I've fixed it. Thanks! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For all of your hard work in getting Fight Club (film) up to FA status and put on the main page for its 10 year anniversary! Great job! Please keep up the hard work! Remember (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
p.s. After achieving a FA, everything else in your life has the volume turned down. You could deal with anything.
LOL! Love the postscript. :) Many thanks for the Barnstar. Check out Twitter; people are talking about the article! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

First, congrats on the Fight Club TFA. Secondly, your user page actually prompted me to trawl Twitter for other TFA shoutouts recently... it's nice to see there are people who care about that sort of stuff, i guess :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it is fun to search Twitter for the hot topics. When I backpacked in Europe last summer, I followed on my Blackberry tweets related to the protests over the Iran elections in real time. It was pretty surreal to watch history unfold like that! I imagine for Fight Club, it's kind of a young generation's film, and since they're all caught up in social media, it's not too surprising to see the chatter about it. It's just fulfilling to see people appreciate it. I'm looking forward to the page view statistics for today! Should be a ridiculous spike in traffic. Thanks for the congratulations! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance to see it on the main page, but congratulations. I could have tried to get Little Miss Sunshine as a TFA, but I want to save my point (for never having a TFA) for the Oklahoma City bombing article for April 2010. At that point, maybe you can run a Twitter report for me since I don't have an account. Of course, I doubt it would have as many hits as Fight Club. Anyway, good job. By the way, is that you first time seeing Dr. Strangelove? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at User talk:WikiProject_Films/Film_awards_task_force.
Message added 00:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

reply Tim1357 (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Does the film WikiProject have a specific policy or guideline for noting writer credit in infoboxes? I know some film infoboxes will list writers involved in the creation of the story and/or screenplay even if they are not officially credited. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow

You're back!! I wondered where you'd gone. There is a discussion at WT:ACTOR regarding Razzies that I hope you noticed. Welcome home? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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) 05:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS' Tag & Assess Drive and Roll Call

The project's Tag & Assess drive has begun. We will be assessing over 50,000 articles during the drive and we need your help! 200-article ranges can be adopted and completed at any pace. A variety of awards are available based on the number of articles assessed. Please help review whatever you are comfortable with, and if you have any questions, leave a message on the talk page of the drive. In addition, please add your name to the active member list if you have not already. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tender Mercies

Hi Erik, it's Hunter Kahn. I don't know if you remember me, but you provided some very helpful information during my old FAC nomination for the Tender Mercies film entry. If you'll recall, the issues back then were a lack of a comprehensive "Themes" section and scholarly sources. I think your those issues are now resolved, in no small part thanks to your feedback. I would have nominated it again long ago, but I got bogged down with some real-life matters, as well as the fact that it took me a particularly long time to track down one particular journal article I wanted. That being said, I think Tender Mercies is ready now and I've once again nominated it for FAC. If you can spare the time, I'm very much hoping you'll weigh in on the new FAC page. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about plots in film articles

I tried looking at WP:PLOTS#Citations for the answer, but am still not sure about my question. When you don't cite the plot, does it still have to be from the sources used in the rest of an article. Because their aren't enough sources conveying everything I put that describes it in an article that I'm currently working on. The film, I've watched and fast forwarded on iTunes through scenes in order to get the important scenes. Why doesn't an admin from Wiki when evaluating FAC articles watch (the particular film on the FAC nomination list) for themselves to make sure that everything is accurate, because when you said that people could watch it for themselves; can't someone just make up everything, although it may be written nicely? Thanx! ATC . Talk 01:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Western films

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#Western films

I was on a break and so missed the discussion and subsequent CfD. After reading the discussions, my preference is still for Category:Western (genre) films, followed by your suggestion of Category:Films in the Western genre. I understand the reasons for renaming the category, but my preference lies with a title that removes any ambiguity regarding the meaning of "Western". For me, the phrase "Western (cultural object/topic)" almost always evokes the meaning of "Western world", so "Western films" translates to "films produced in the Western world" much like "Western values" translates to "values prevalent in the Western world".

Anyway, I just want to say again that I appreciated your note. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Best Wishes

Hey, was sad to see you step down from the coordinator position. I know we haven't always gotten along, but I think you did a great job and your contributions will be missed. Glad to see you are okay, though, was worried when you weren't online for so long :-) Wishing you the best in your real world endeavors, and happy holidays! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that we didn't always get along! What I brought up in the past was a matter apart from me, but our direct exchanges have been pleasant. Thanks for worrying about me, and hope you have happy holidays as well! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I echo Collectonian's thoughts on you stepping down. You have been one of the project's most valuable members and I do hope that you are able to return at some point when you are able. If you have any specific pages that you would like me to watch for you, let me know and I'll try my best to keep an eye on it (my watchlist has been lacking due to some limited editing time though, so I can't guarantee the articles would always be checked). If you ever need anything let me know on my talk page or feel free to send me an e-mail. Again, thank you for all of your assistance and time spent improving articles for millions of readers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

I'm SO glad to see you around and about here! I think of you and wonder how things are going. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I think I needed to step away from my larger responsibilities and get back to basics for a while. That way, I won't feel too obligated and thus feel guilty about not being around... just going to work on my pet project at User:Erik/The Fountain when I have free time. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

reverting

Hey Erik, someone edited a page today that I wrote some stuff for. I didn't revert their changes, either, cuz this is Wikipedia. Not that it has anything to do with you, because it totally doesn't, man. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Twilight

... In any case, MTV Movie Awards is useless -- look what won the MTV Movie Award for Best Movie in 2009 ...

I would have to agree. However, looking at User:Erik/Films I do not see Twilight listed. You wouldn't happen to be bashing a film you haven't actually seen, would you? :) In that case, I recommend watching it — to confirm your preconceived notions, if nothing else. decltype (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hah! :) Well, reliable sources indicate that the film is a stinker... as opposed to The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionaire. I would have expected The Dark Knight to win, based on the awards' demographic, but apparently one half of the demographic swarmed the ballots more than the other... I'd rather save myself two hours. :) Do you have any good films that you'd recommend that I haven't seen, based on that list? Erik (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be a bit difficult, since you have not indicated your opinion of any of them. Also, at first glance, your list contains pretty much all the films I've seen lately that I'd consider good. Going back to 2006, I assume that you've seen The Prestige and Pan's Labyrinth. decltype (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The sub-page is mainly for list-keeping purposes for myself (I do my ratings on Netflix), but I share the list to prompt conversation, as we have here. Very few of these films fall below 3 out of 5 stars. Most of them are probably 3 and 4. 5-star films would include American History X, In the Name of the Father, Brick, REC, Waking Life, The Hangover, etc. I saw The Prestige and Pan's Labyrinth; great films! The Prestige is a particularly chilling one, where Pan's Labyrinth really punches you in the gut with its ending. (The faun and the way it moved was utterly fantastic, although the Pale Man was not as scary as I'd hoped.) Erik (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for the recommendations, I have not seen all of those. I'll be very careful when reading our articles on them, since I do not want to get spoiled :) Regards, decltype (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Addition to Sunshine, reliable source?

Per a bit of discussion, a possible influence on the film was pointed out, but the only source presented is http://thefanzine.com/articles/books/316/the_last_warlock-_a_brief_history_of_clark_ashton_smith_and_the_golden_age_of_weird_fiction/6, and I'm not sure if it passes WP:RS. I think it does, but thought I'd ask someone with more experience. Geoff B (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the About page, it seems like a fairly reliable source. If there is intent to nominate Sunshine as a Featured Article, though, it could use additional backing from other sources. Erik (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Righto, thanks Erik. Geoff B (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I would also avoid calling it an influence but instead note the similarity. Also, keep mention of the similarity brief because judging from Google searches, this is a minor observation. Erik (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Executive producers

Erik (and Steve if you happen to see this), what is the Wikipedia general practice or standard regarding including or excluding executive producers in "Infobox Film"? I went by what the official site gave for the credits as the basis for Up in the Air (film). Two other editors removed the executive producers. I reverted the first edit, but am holding off on reverting the second edit pending guidance from someone much more knowledgeable than I am on this matter. Thank you in advance for your assistance and guidance, --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, we do not include executive producers; the field is reserved for producers, period. Not co-producers or assistant producers. There can be exceptions, though, if the executive producer is well-known, like Steven Spielberg with Transformers. In the case of Up in the Air, I am not sure if the executive producers are worth mentioning (there seem to be enough regular producers to mention, anyway). The movie 300 is more of a nightmare, with seven executive producers. However, for Up in the Air, if executive producers played a major role in the making of the film, they can be mentioned in the article body, like Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry with Precious. Erik (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

this reminds me of a story

Erik, we still haven't heard anyone object on the substance of my proposal to the Plot graph change. I'm sure we can both see how obvious it is that I'm proposing an improvement.

This reminds me of the time there was a little dispute over at No Country for Old Men. I had some different ideas from another editor. We hashed it out for a while without agreeing and then I did my best to include his concerns in an edit that I did. So we sort of listened to each other and took each other's good faith into account. It's not a good idea to leave yourself open to charges of bad faith, especially when you likely have the intelligence to accept a reasonable improvement.

Thanks for all your hard work! --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Inchon (film)

I'd like to retain the sources used for the Reviews subsection, but agree it might be a good idea to tweak the wording used for each. Does that sound like something you could help with? :) Thank you very much for your time and input, Cirt (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, actually maybe I'll have a go at trimming it down a bit, but let me know what you think. Cirt (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Why do you want to retain the sources? It would be less repetitive to work with fewer of them and to go into more depth than saying the film is bad. Sounds like a plan. I've placed the article on my watchlist. (I don't have too many on it anymore, cutting down on my activity for the most part. Damned if I can't stay away from WP, though...) Erik (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I have succeeded in trimming that particular subsection down significantly [2]. Care to have another look? ;) Cirt (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cast/Crew

Any comments you could add here would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Help needed regarding rewrite tag

In revision 333012628 by 92.156.50.80 (talk), the user added the {{rewrite}} template to Up in the Air (film) without providing a reason. If you see a reason that this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, please state it in Talk:Up in the Air (film)#Justification for rewrite tag. I would appreciate it if you or someone from the American cinema task force would determine whether the {{rewrite}} is justified and to remove the tag if it is not. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar

Please stop removing the British parts from the lede. Avatar is referred to as American-British because one of the production companies is British, and nationaility for films derives from the nationality of the production companies. The British release dates are relevant because WP:FilmRelease states that the date of teh first public showing should be included, along with the release dates of the production countries. Please restore the British release dates and the nationality otherwise I will have choice but to report you for edit-warring. Please take your concerns to the discussion page where these issues have already being discussed and settled upon. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

you removed "Themes and inspirations: Deleted content backed by unreliable source -- any *.blogspot.com citation is immediately dismissed)" . How about it is supported by other Wikipedia articles to which it had direct links?????? If some pothead adds a blogspot citation - completely unrelated to the stuff I wrote BTW, but you don't read Russian do you - so *remove* *THAT* *citation*, DON'T remove the text with well established easily verified veracity. Just DON'T!!! *****GOSH!***** WillNess (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Ideally, we shouldn't leave the material if we cannot cite it reliably. The web page from *.blogspot.com is not a reliable source. Erik (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just said to you that the blogspot sitation was NOT a source for this. Someone added it on their own, and it was completely irrelevant. So remove THAT CITATION, don't remove the text. It has links to other Wikipedia articles showing its veracity: just CLICK to see for yourself. WillNess (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You can't cite Wikipedia to back Wikipedia. Text has to be backed by a reliable source. Erik (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

How did you go from good guy to bad guy and I got the crappy post and represented as a vandal? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I just focused my clash on the content itself. :P Erik (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware of this on AN/I? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker award section cleanup

Just want to call your attention to some cleanup of The Hurt Locker's award section. I've outlined what I'm thinking about doing on the talk page here, and would appreciate your thoughts and comments! There's been some contentious editing on this article in the past, and I'd like to avoid that here if at all possible.

Also, what do you think about my comment on trying to get a more consistent awards format for films? Worth talking about it at WP:FILM? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Betty Logan (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

An article you have worked on is up for deletion

Characters and wildlife in Avatar is now sent to AFD. This message is being sent to everyone who worked on it, who isn't already there. Dream Focus 19:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

WP:AN/I

Hi there. I can't see that you were notified so I thought I'd let you know and apologize for this getting to this point. Are you aware that Betty Logan filed a WP:AN/I report where you are mentioned? It's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please can I have some advice. I'm sorry I stepped in. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier if she wasn't going around posting comments at the talk pages of people who filed a sock puppet accusation against me. [3] and see here. Comments at the latter would be appreciated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik/Archive_19&oldid=1166522608"