User talk:Erik/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

The Incredible Hulk

Hi Erik, Your Wikibreak is already taking some time. Nevertheless I have question, I have a question about the section critical reception. I have added a review by Todd McCarthy of Variety, but I'm not sure if it fits in the article or not. I have already explained on the talkpage of the film, why I added it, maybe you can take a look at, when you are back and reply to my concern.Sha-Sanio (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also prepared reviews for Underworld the Rise of the Lycons, My Bloody Valentine, and the Box Office results of Revolutionary Road, Slumdog and Frost/Nixon. Maybe I'll try a review of the Hulk thing on my own and when you are back you'll help me.Sha-Sanio (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits seem alright to me. The Incredible Hulk (film) is a Good Article, so I think that it is pretty set in its content, including the "Reception" section. I don't know if it needs any more reviews after the Variety addition. There's only so many reviews we can add before we drive the same points home over and over. For the other film articles, what do you need help with? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dustbin Baby (film)

I'm about to check to see if the references are reliable and spot check them for accuracy. I don't suspect much issues, so if you can get someone to take care of the copyedits, this should be a GA by tomorrow. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming this message was for me. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That explains a lot! :) I was only checking to see if Dustbin Baby was going to get a review before posting the GA nominations yet-to-be-reviewed at WT:FILM. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Frighteners

Yeah sorry about that, I always make notes and place them all on the GA talk page, I'm almost finished with the article, but I've been busy with school and stuff. I was planning to post the full review either today or tomorrow, is that alright with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Music2611 (talk • contribs) 12:02, January 28, 2009

It's no problem! I was just making sure that the article was covered. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the full review can be found on the article it's GA talk page, sorry about my late reaction.--Music26/11 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Death Walks the Streets

Do you think this is more appropriately merged to the comic article? This is a little more complex than our average NFF case. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty unusual situation. I think merging to the comics article would be a good idea. I checked the revision history statistics, and there do not seem to be any major contributors to contact. What we could do is merge the second, third, and fourth paragraphs to a "Planned film" section at the comics article. Perhaps we can move Death Walks the Streets to Death Walks the Streets (film) and request a move of Death Walks the Streets (comics) to Death Walks the Streets? Then just do a merge without worrying about deletion? It's pretty sourced, it just didn't happen, so a merge seems like the safest bet. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that might be making the page moving too complex - I'd do the merge at the main page, mainly porting over the comic page and paring down the film info, then set the comic and film dabbed pages to redirect. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That approach works, too. We need to strip the film article of anything film-related, such as the film infobox and the Cast section. Should the comics infobox be used at the top or in a section in the middle of the article? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Valkyrie

Singer's DVDs are always terrifically comprehensive, he didn't do a commentary for Superman Returns but made up for it with a three hour documentary. You've done a terrific job on the article; I think you could put it up for GA now and use the DVD to check for FA. I enjoyed the film yes, a terrifically performed history lesson (the best history lessons move you, IMO). Doesn't need a Themes section because of that. :) Alientraveller (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Film banner

During my recent update of the project banner, I took the liberty of adding an additional message regarding future films, which is displayed when an article is rated as Future-Class. You can see an example of this at Talk:National Lampoon's Van Wilder: Freshman Year. What do you think? PC78 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we need the detail in the banner. The department does not really provide instruction in writing an article. What about mentioning either WP:NFF or WP:FUTFILM in the {{Future film}} template? Also, like N2020 brought up at WT:FILMC, I think we could discuss fixing up the parameters to be better, like revising needs-cast= to focus on the "Cast" section and make a parameter to encourage a "Production" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can remove it in the next update. I don't think WP:FUTFILM should be mentioned in the {{future film}} banner, but mentioning WP:NFF is probably a good idea. I'm not so sure about adding more parameters to the banner; the categories for the existing improvement parameters are so heavily populated that I'm not convinced they do any good, though myself and Giro have briefly discussed subcategorising them by task force. More discussion at WT:FILMC, perhaps? PC78 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

True, I don't know how often these parameters are followed. I just have never liked how the current parameters are written, so what I'm proposing is a better difference between asking for cast information and asking for production information. The parameter descriptions are a little muddled about this. Beyond these parameters, I don't really know what else would be useful. Is there no way to measure if readers ever click through the parameter links in the template? That would be pretty handy... —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Your feedback always is welcome and very much appreciated. I will make some changes to Beyond the Sea based on your insight. Thank you for taking the time to write! LiteraryMaven (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Valkyrie and Die Zeit

Hi Erik, I have prepared what the culturally important "Die Zeit " has written about Valkyrie, and about scientolugy as well, maybe we should add to the article. What do you think about it??? This where the text can be found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Valkyrie. If you agree to add I will provide a reference. Thank you.Sha-Sanio (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I have not been able to get back to you... I will take a look at what you have later today. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

American films

My concern is that, without defining subcategories such as "American drama films" and such, the "American films" category will soon be hopelessly overpopulated. While I agree that no one should tamper with the "Americanfilms" template, I fail to see how modifying a simple category does any harm. In fact, I think it helps. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Treybien 13:02 3 February 2009 (talk)

Enchanted screenshots

Hi. Regarding the screenshots you removed from the article Enchanted (film), when is it appropriate to use them? Is it alright to use them to show the two different styles used (live-action and animation)? I read Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:FILMNFI but I still don't completely understand when it is appropriate to use them. Would it be qualified as "acceptable use" if the images were in the filming section, where it talks about the two styles? Regards, Ladida (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Erik. Regards, Ladida (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Netflix

Sorry, spying on your list again, but what'd you think of The Fall? I've watched it on DVD and Blu-ray, and there is an amazing difference. It's amazing that 18 countries were used to get all of the great shots. By the way, were you starting the discussion on the parameters? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that it was a decent film, but my mind was already daydreaming of bigger, more elaborate fantasies! :) It was a little strange to watch the child actor... not so used to that kind of realistic performance since so much child acting I've seen is pretty precocious. There were some great shots, definitely... like the priest's face transiting into that landscape. And thanks for the reminder about discussing the parameters! Let me put something together now. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

RE

Hello, I noticed that you cut back the prose in the list. (Disclosure: My attention was drawn to this list because I was emailed... you probably know the story.) Anyway, out of curiosity, I looked at the revision of the list that was promoted and saw that it was supported even with the prose. Since the removals are pretty significant, may I recommend that you explain your action on the list's talk page for future reference? I think it would demonstrate beyond the limits of edit summaries what you wanted to accomplish in your changes. Just wanted to share that! Happy editing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at about 20 random authors "list of" articles; all of them are lists, with minimal prose. They leave the authors bio to the authors bio stuff. That thing was loaded with garbage trivia ("once wrote an article for maxim magazine, a magazine that was founded in 1996 intended to capture the lad market.") Since all of that material was added in by an abusive sock-puppeteer, now indef-blocked, who was the owner of the article, there won't be any controversy from legit editors. Also, you may not be aware, but this user likes to cause disuption, upon disruption. He often emails people and asks them to take up his concerns. In good faith people do, not realize they've been drawn into one of his games (and in that spirit, please keep any communicating you want to do with me about him here or on relevant article talk pages). Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the situation, but this is not really about the editor. If you look at the FLC process for the list, this revision was supported by a number of editors. Unless you're saying that the prose was complete nonsense, I just think that removals that large should have an explanation on the talk page. Hopefully no stink will be raised about the list down the road, but if there is one raised, you can point to the talk page or its archives to show that you removed the content and outlined why you did so. Let me know if I am not being clear or if I am missing something about the validity of the prose despite its poor placement on what should be a list. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Iron Man

What, why was he showing the article? Alientraveller (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

She was showing it as an example of Wikipedia collaboration. Sounded like she enjoyed the movie and felt that it could relate to most of the class. It's social media like YouTube and Twitter and Facebook and sites with user reviews. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Questionnaire

Thanks for inviting me. I filled in the survey and hope it serves some use. ^LeaveSleaves 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yoohoo!!!!

Hey Erik, when you come back from your break I'm gonna tell you a story about a rainy day and how I've finally found the entrance to the StarWars museum, that you are always talking about. Sha-Sanio (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's late and cold here and I hope you come back soon, we already miss you. I've found the entrance finally, I was lost here already, but I made it finally Yoohoo!!!! Nothing seen this day but the entrance is there and now I only want to get home, but tomorrow is still another day to take a look at the museum. Hope to see you soon at the starwars museum.Thanks for not confusing me and goodbye.Sha-Sanio (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Erik, where are you staying so long. I start thinking I'm never gonna finish work all on my own. Despair. Cry. Sneeze. I thought I would see you today, where are you? I hope you come back soon, it's so boring here without you. Sha-Sanio (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Erik, I'm working on some Smallville stuff, but I don't get finished and I really don't know how to go on. It would be better when you were here to help me.Sha-Sanio (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Visitor

Hi, Erik! I thought I remembered a discussion re: film release dates several months ago in which the consensus was the year to use was the one in which it had its first public showing, hence my reason for making the switch. Apparently I remembered incorrectly. (By the way, I realize IMDb is a questionable source for many editors, but the site shows this as a 2007 film.) Since you definitely know much more than I, I will defer to your judgment and switch it back. To give me a better understanding of how to handle this in the future, would you feel the same way if a film was shown at several festivals in one year but not released in theaters until the next? Should the first theatrical release date always be the one used? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to switch it back and got the following response: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." I'll leave it in your capable hands to accomplish the change, OK? Sorry for creating a problem! LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed when the article was created it was designated a 2007 film [1], then it was switched to 2008 [2]. I'm surprised when I changed it back to 2007 I didn't get the response I received a few moments ago. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Erik

Do you remember the title of the film where bill murray is stuck in a little village, where a little animal, a dog or something of that kind, is predicting the weather in the next spring. I know someone who behaves like this for years and nobody can't stand him by now. Please answer when you remember the name of the film, otherwise I don't know what to do next. No idea. I'm so tired. I'm curious, when do you plan to return tomorrow or next week?Sha-Sanio (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Twilight

Hi Erik, I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to look at the Twilight (1998 film) article again. I'll see if I can find those books the first time I get a chance to visit a library. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, but I find myself in need of a few days away due to a recent "engagement" lately. While I effectively achieved the results I was hoping for in the article, I sort of feel emotionally drained, and a bit of a failure at not being able to reach an understanding with a returning editor. I will revisit the Twilight article in the near future. Thanks again for taking the time to look at it and offer your guidance. ;) — Ched (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bogs

Something does seem off about them, and once I read your statement it almost seemed to click that that has to be it. The way they oddly clung to you and were wishing you would return because they missed you. How they instinctively were drawn to you, me, and Alien for some reason. Have you noticed that they are creating a sandbox for just about every single article that they come across, as well as uploading countless images? Do you think we should request an IP check?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to take a look at his contribs. I generally ignore him, but he's been coming of to the Smallville pages and uploading tons of images and adding irrelevant details to various sections (some of which aren't even the right place). I don't know what his actual goals are, because even his consistent edits are erratic in nature. (I checked on the check user request stuff...they've redone it so much that I don't even know how to request them to do a check anymore).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let you know, I filed a sock-puppet request.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Concert Special and Concert Special #2 (TV special)

I need help. I was experimenting with disambiguation due to confusion of titles, I was looking through the Wikipedia:disambiguation and made a mistake.
This article wouldn't detect "Concert Special #2 (TV special)" different from "Concert Special," which is a studio album.
It hasn't been created yet but I was adding television episodes through The Naked Brothers Band television series with television episode infobox's.
Sorry about that I should of used the sandbox first.
Could you help me with both articles and create a Wikipedia:hatnote.
ATC (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked into the matter, and basically, "#" cannot be used in an article title (see Help). What you can do instead is create the TV special article Concert Special Number 2, and we can create a hatnote at Concert Special to link to it. We can also create Concert Special 2 to redirect to the TV special article. Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help!

Could we create Concert Special Number 2 (TV special) and put Concert Special #2 as the title in the infobox?

That explains a lot.

Thanx again!

ATC (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can move it to Concert Special Number 2 with no need for the {TV special) disambiguation because there is nothing else titled just like that. We just use a hatnote to clarify the full title if someone accidentally winds up at Concert Special. Also, seeing that you've created the TV special article, I highly recommend making sure that there is enough content to reflect the topic's notability. Right now, the article is bare, and it should have at least some information in the form of a stub. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A question about a reference used multiple times

I have seen it done, but am not aware of how to set up the wiki form of ibid, so I don't have to use the long form of every citation each time. Alientraveller or Bignole can chime in, if they have the time. All three of you always have good advice to offer. Btw, hello and Happy New Year to all of you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too! Hope Bignole provided you with a detailed enough explanation. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - February 2009

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 02:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Erik

As I can see you are still on Wiki break. Wow, for how long? I don't know if everything is correct, if every thing is as it should be or if I have forgotten to add an important detail to my contribution to the Valkyrie article. I'm really sorry you are not there to remind me. I confess, I'm a little bit afraid.Sha-Sanio (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Erik, they have deleted my pictures, what am I going to do know. I'm still not sure if everything is allright. This was horrificly long day.Sha-Sanio (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Erik, what do you think about new images of the Smallvillecast. Please leave a message on the talkpage of the article. Sha-Sanio (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: tu biblioteca

Basically my plan is to get all the Star Trek films up to FA; for whatever reason, I haven't been able to locate the old Cinefantastique articles, etc. through any of my databases (but can get them off InterLibraryLoan.) The next one up is Star Trek: The Motion Picture; if you can make a list like the one's you've done, I can go ahead and scrounge for them. Thanks :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My library has Cinefantastique, but I can't remember how far back it goes. I was looking at the 1997-1998 volume today, actually, to see what information could be used for Dark City. How does the loan work? Is it too much of a pain? I can definitely dig up resources for The Motion Picture; let me get back to you tonight since I'm about to head out the door. Want me to put them on the film article's talk page or a sandbox of yours? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically I just submit the bibliographic detail and in a couple weeks I get scanned PDFs. It's slow, but I'm in no rush, and having the scans on hand is always a bonus. The newspapers and such I can get directly via LexisNexis and the like, but apparently film is an area where my university has skimped :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Unfortunately ILL never has been able to turn up StarBurst either, but luckily it appears Cinifex, Cinefantastique and the like pick of the slack. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured article non-free images

Sorry to interrupt your above conversation with your friend, but I was wondering about a few images in our project's featured articles. A user pointed out that Zodiac has two images that illustrate the characters. I believe the first two images merit removal from the article per the non-free criteria. Looking at just a few of our other Featured Articles, The Mummy, Kung Fu Hustle, or Dog Day Afternoon also have issues with non-free promotional images/screenshots that aren't backed up with critical commentary. I noticed a while back that you went through and removed many screenshots from various articles that didn't meet the criteria. Did you sweep the FAs already and leave the images or did you not take a look at these? I just wanted to clarify before removing anything. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think I did a full sweep with Featured Articles; I don't remember what I went through to find articles that had non-free images. If you do such a sweep, check the page history to see if the image uploader is the same person as the primary contributor. If so, then it is worth opening dialogue with the editor, especially about a better replacement image. I'd definitely clean up Kung Fu Hustle in particular... —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Popping in since my FA's mentioned... The images were pretty thoroughly checked at the FAC, and Elco found nothing wrong with the remaining shot. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to starting on these (I was especially focusing on KFH, which has way too many screenshots). To David, I was only pointing out that the article had an image that doesn't comply with the non-free image guidelines of the project, which can be seen here. The image does have a proper fair use rationale and source, but we should no longer be using screenshots merely to illustrate characters. If you still think the cast image should be kept, perhaps information can be found on designing the wardrobe of the characters which can be included in the text. If there was to be a screenshot in the article, perhaps one can be found illustrating the visual effects of creating the Mummy instead. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And it's a Wikiproject guideline that I intend to ignore. :) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We could put it up for WP:IFD to see what the consensus is. After all, WP:NFC says, "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." The image's rationale is for "identification" of the characters, and the only acceptable images for identification are "Cover art" and "Stamps and currency". The WikiProject guideline just clarifies why mere identification of characters isn't sufficient. Feel free to put it up, N2020. I'm sure we can find a sufficient replacement. It seems like a picture of the mummy itself would be far more relevant. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

NFC is a guideline, WP:NFCC is a *policy*, and has no such discriminating bright lines. Additionally, I see no evidence the film style guidelines every went through a real vetting; one moment it was a random page, then someone slapped a guideline tag on it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why there is all this vitriol over the WikiProject Films article guidelines. It isn't very similar to when it first started out, having been shaped by quite a bit of discussion. For non-free images in particular, I tried my best to get as much attention as possible to the relevant discussion. In any case, the issue with the character image is that per WP:NFC, it is replaceable (all actors in the image have free images) and not significant. What I mean by not significant is that any kind of character image could be used -- grouped or ungrouped, different settings, or different attires. The only constant is really the face, and there are free images to show the cast members who were a part of this film. Can you share why you think it is not replaceable and why it is significant? Why can it not be replaced by one of the mummy, for which commentary exists in the article? Such a special effects design would undoubtedly be irreplaceable alongside the content that talked about the reinvention. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I created two images from a special feature on the DVD illustrating the visual effects of creating the mummy. They can be seen here and here. Would we want to use one of those, or just a straight image of the mummy? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the second image captures the subject matter better, but I would be fine with just showing the final result, too. Depends on if there is an interest to replace the current image or even add to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

300 Plot section

I've trimmed down the plot to 644 words (about 200 less than it was before), and have removed your plot tag. Please feel free to take a look at the resulting section, and tell me what you think. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great job trimming! If you think it is possible, the "In Sparta" and "At the Hot Gates" paragraphs could be trimmed further, since the specific actions could be replaced with more succinct overviews. Let me know if you want me to take a shot at it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Along with Bignole's edit, the plot is down to 552 words. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice going, both of you! Just one question: "Visibly disturbed by this reminder of his own mortality, All of the Spartans are felled by arrows." I am not really sure what it is trying to say? I can't remember the film well enough. I assume that Xerxes was disturbed and gave the order to rain arrows upon the Spartans? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would have waited!!!

If you would have waited just a day or so, maybe I would have updated the table furthermore! I'm talking about the "Recurring actors" table in the Nolan article. Jeez... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman88 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Erik is a fairly nifty fellow, but I do not believe that telepathy is amongst his gifts. Maybe next time, you will make use of the { { in use } } tag, so people know you are editing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the common area, y'all. Go over to Talk:Christopher Nolan#Recurring actors. Bignole beat you both there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love

Hi User:Erik,
I wanted to know if you could help me create an article for an NBC television docudrama film, Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love.
Thanx!
ATC (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Italicized titles

Hello Mr. Erik. OK discussion moved to village pump. Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi. For neutrality purposes I was wondering if you could provide some input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force#Reliable sources in Bollywood films articles as there is a disagreement over the reliability and intergrity of this sources in film articles. We need to come to a consensus on whether the sites mentioned are valid sources. I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing Links

Whats the deal with submitting movie reviews as external links? It clearly states in the "guide to external links" that it is completely appropriate to add a review or interview as an external link, yet all of the review links I submit are taken down. Please Advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flignats (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Boldface

Sounds fine. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

Hi, Erik. Thanks for writing to me. I just have two concerns, and maybe we could work them out. First is, there's no page number given for where this ostensibly appears in the Hughes book. Second -- and believe me, I agree with you completely about pages looking cluttered -- I'm finding that because there's no explanation for why someone who supposedly wrote a script isn't credited, that this claim needs a citation. Otherwise, it feels as if it's coming from a source other than the Hughes book, which presumably would have explained why such an unusual, Writers Guild-busting thing took place.

It's different from script-doctoring after-the-fact; this sounds as if the writer's work was stolen from him -- unless the subsequent writers wrote a new script from scratch,and if that's so, the paragraph doesn't make this clear.

While the paragraph I'm sure seems clear to the person who wrote it, I'm sure you understand that others, including a longtime professional journalist such as myself, see unanswered questions that need clarification or more specific citation. These are legitimate concerns, and I have good faith that we can address these in a way we both feel is the clearest and best referenced. What do you say? Any ideas? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's terrific -- thank you for going to all that trouble! The Hughes book itself -- which appears to be a cut-paste quickie -- seems vague. Hughes calls the Gilliam-Skaaren-Hamm script a "second draft" without explaining what happened with McKeown. The quote that Gilliam gives McCabe seems to indicate that Gilliam and McKeown did a complete script, which would make the Gilliam-Skaaren-Hamm script a third draft. Does the Hughes book say where the McCabe interview/article appeared? That original interview/article might make the sequence clearer than the book does.

In the meantime, what do you think about adding the page number to the extant cite? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, can't say we didn't try. While I'm uncomfortable with not saying something about McKeown going uncredited for no publicly given reason (since general-audience readers wouldn't know the industry ins-and-outs of writing credits), I think giving the page number provides a certain level of assurance. Seem a fair middle ground to you?

That said, each of the Hughes cites, if they're on separate pages, need to give a page number (which is pretty basic with book citations). The first cite would have the publishing info, etc., while the remainders would be "Hughes, p.XX"

I'm afraid I don't have the book. It seems like you do. Would you mind adding page numbers? I know it takes some effort, but you've expended so much already, and like me, you really seem to care about accuracy and the Wikipedia way of things. I have to say, I've enjoyed collaborating with you. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Films with incorrect Future-Class coding

I've scrubbed through the category completely now. The remaining entries either have issues of some sort, or are currently in process at AfD (and thus, well...have issues of some sort). If you'd be willing to have a look through these and recommend (or initiate) some course of action, that'd be great. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Was there really an agreement between you and User:David Levy to have Bolt (film) as a redirect to Bolt (2008 film)? Because I'm not seeing it in the link he directed me to. Please share your thoughts here. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Time Traveler's Wife Movie

Hey, I just noticed that IMDB has updated the future release date of TTTW movie to Feb 2010. Do you know anything about it? - Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jquigley13112 (talk • contribs) 11:53, February 21, 2009

Infobox

Do you think there is some merit down the road (when a few of the currently opened threads close) in perhaps doing a comprehensive line-by-line review of the parameters and doing some major liposuction? Perhaps establish a few general principles of inclusion/exclusion and redraw along those lines? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tough call... I am so accustomed to the current parameters that it is hard to see one of them disappear. (I think that the "narrated by" field should be clarified for documentaries only and never for fictional films, IMO.) Other than that... producers may not always be covered in the article body, but they are enough of top-liners to warrant inclusion. Maybe we could save "budget" and "gross revenue" for the article body? Also, pardon me for not responding about future films above... I've been kind of on a leave of absence. Trying to figure out how to balance priorities here and in real life. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Expendables (2010 film)

Hi, Erik. Just a note that I have salted this title for six months as it has been repeatedly recreated and deleted as CSD G4: recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Happy to lift the protection sooner if production begins and the film meets WP:NFF before protection expires. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox movie certificates

Not sure if you've seen it or not, but this template is up for discussion at TfD. Regards. PC78 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Film coordinator elections

See my comment there. Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

I agree that my time has not been spent recently in the WickyWacky world, although I hoped that people would understand that professional responsibilities must sometimes trump what is essentially a "hobby." I will continue to devote some time to the projects I had started but in re-establishing my watchlist, I noted with some sadness and resignation that a number of the articles that I had written had been "rewritten" with a revision to an arcane and often singular style by a group of film editors. What is more disturbing is that numerous images have been summarily removed making them "orphans" and thus causing the bots to go into effect. In checking the history of the removals, in nearly all cases, it was an editor on a "crusade" whose intentions were always stated as being for the "common good" but it did appear to be a distressing trend of cyber snobbery and bullying. My initial thought was to replace the images and edits as both actions went against the established "first person's work remains" dictum but I started to pick up a pattern of these editors revising major articles to fit their own style, and further, then eliminating the original research and work that had already been in place. What is further evident is that the editors then triumphantly would boost their revised articles, putting them up for review and attracting further notice when other editors and coordinators recognized their efforts in a plethora of barnstars. I don't particularly mind that there is a sub-set of editors that are working in Wikipedia for personal gratification, the "soliciting" of barnstars, placing their names into contention for administrators, asking for special privileges, ad nauseum... although that was never my intention in adding to the project. I am one of the editors who never has been after rewards and I do not wish to have my work necessarily "peer reviewed" as the articles of themselves invite collaboration and should eventually become the work of many. What I noted on my recent return was the deliberate re-writing of a number of articles without a consensus for change, especially when the changes were in most part, stylistic. One of the galling aspects was the deliberate rewriting of citations and bibliographies that were painstakingly written in "text" but did not follow the sometimes obscure "templates" yet were perfectly acceptable examples of Harvard citations or other standard bibliographic formats. As a former librarian and now a professional editor and author, my work has revolved around the use of the so-called editorial standards or "house style guides" to identify sources, so I believe I am fairly well versed on bibliographic methodology. Now when it comes to Wikipedia's style of referencing sources, the format chosen is an amalgam of two or three formats including the MLA (Modern Language Association), APA (American Psychological Association) and "Chicago Style" guides. Rather than spitting in the wind, I have chosen to not try to re-write Wikipedia into my own notions and I tend to leave other people's work alone, however, that does not seem to be the case for other editors, as can be seen in the never-ending diatribe that is found in the format talk pages. So hopefully, this blathering helps explain my consternation at being labeled "AWOL", as I was never far from the scene but had some genuine reservations about whether an effort in this medium was worth the trouble. Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC) (take this for what it's worth – not much in today's economy!)

Can it be elaborated what the style changes have been? Same for the types of images? For the writing of citations, if the initial write-up was valid, then it does not need to be revised. A certain writing approach would normally be acceptable if there is no previously demonstrated consistency in writing citations. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In a number of instances, the article was essentially re-written which could constitute repudiation of one of the pillars of Wikipedia, namely working without consensus and not accepting good-faith submissions either to illustrate a point or "putting a stamp" on an article. In regards to images, the series that were removed were all found in film articles and revolved around the confusing notion of use of non-free images. It merely takes an editor to invoke the "boldness" rule and eliminate images for personal reasons (one accompanying note indicated much the case in that images were contested on the basis of being characterized as decorative non-free images per WP:NFCC). The image "police" conduct a kangeroo court where any defence is summarily rejected and once the image is "orphaned" along comes a bot to erase the image. I just got tired of fighting against this approach and even though the editors involved have often been reproached for their cavalier behaviour, it just didn't seem worth the effort anymore. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

I am still not clear what the styling differences are... are we talking about in the infobox, in the article body, in the citation write-ups? For non-free images, I have to say that there is a pattern to how they are added. For underdeveloped articles, added non-free images are considered decorative because there is no obvious critical commentary about them. If an article is well-developed, non-free images generally have stronger rationales, though not perfect. (These situations are when it's best to engage the primary contributor(s) about the appropriateness of such images.) It's far easier to implement images when there is correlating content in the article. WP:NFCC is fairly stringent about requiring some thought for an image's implementation before deciding whether to go through with the addition or not. It can be inflexible, but it's not impossible to find possible images to use. Just takes a little extra sweat on the brow. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Without going into complete details or names, here is an example of how changes appeared:

Production (my original version)

While studio footage was based at the Elstree Film Studios, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, England, other UK locations were also utilized at Knutsford, Cheshire and Sunningdale, Berkshire. Primary photography took place at Trebujena, Cádiz, Andalucía, Spain and Shanghai, China. The filmmakers had originally scouted a number of locations across Asia in an attempt to recreate the harbor city of Shanghai before entering into negotiations with the Shanghai Film Studios and China Film Co-Production Corporation in 1985. After a year of negotiations, permission was granted for a three-week "shoot." To recreate the 1941 era, the Chinese authorities allowed the crew to alter signs to traditional Mandarin lettering, as well closing down city blocks for filming. Using a large group of 5,000 extras to populate the scene as costumed peasants, street vendors, sailors and refugees, the film eventually was able to recruit an additional 5,000 extras from Shanghai factories and offices to stage the mass refugee exodus from the city.[3]

C attempted to portray the era accurately and used period vehicles and aircraft to establish authenticity. Significant in both the novel and the film are iconic vehicles such as the Packard automobile and North American P-51 Mustang.[4]Other than the recreation of the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima, Spielberg eschewed the use of computer generated images (CGI) to use a realistic set and full-scale and scaled props and reproductions (the six Mitsubishi A6M Zero aircraft were reproductions that had previously seen service in the film Tora, Tora, Tora (1970).)[5] In order to stage the American raid on the camp and nearby airfield, an ingenious use of remote controlled 1/3 scale models was used to effect. The scale models allowed for a measure of control over the numerous explosions that were involved.[6]

Production (final version)

Warner Bros. purchased the film rights, intending Harold Becker to direct and Robert Shapiro to produce.[6] Tom Stoppard wrote the first draft, which V briefly collaborated on.[7] Becker dropped out, and David Lean came to direct with X as producer. Lean explained, "I worked on it for about a year and in the end I gave it up because I thought it was too similar to a diary. It was well-written and interesting, but I gave it to Steve."[6] X felt "from the moment I read Y's novel I secretly wanted to direct myself."[8] X found the project to be very personal. As a child, his favorite film was Lean's The Bridge on the River Kwai, which similarly takes place in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. Spielberg's obsession with World War II and the aircraft of that era was stimulated by his father's stories of his experience as a B-25 Mitchell radioman in the China-Burma Theater.[8] X hired Menno Meyjes to do an uncredited rewrite before Stoppard was brought back to write the shooting script.[7]

C was filmed at Elstree Studios in the United Kingdom, and on location in Shanghai and Spain. The filmmakers searched across Asia in an attempt to find locations that resembled 1941 Shanghai. They entered negotiations with Shanghai Film Studios and China Film Co-Production Corporation in 1985.[9] After a year of negotiations, permission was granted for a three-week shoot in early-March 1987. It was the first American film shot in Shanghai since the 1940s.[7] The Chinese authorities allowed the crew to alter signs to traditional Mandarin lettering, as well closing down city blocks for filming.[9] Over 5,000 local extras were used, some old enough to remember the Japanese occupation in Shanghai forty years earlier. Members of the People's Liberation Army played Japanese soldiers.[2] Other locations included Trebujena, Andalusia, Knutsford, Sunningdale and Berkshire.[9] Lean often visited the set during the England shoot.[7] X attempted to portray the era accurately, using period vehicles and aircraft. Computer-generated imagery was used for the Atomic bombing of Nagasaki. The A6M Zero and P-51 Mustangs seen in the film were a combination of CG-scale models. Industrial Light & Magic designed the visual effects sequences. Norman Reynolds was hired as the production designer while Vic Armstrong served as the stunt coordinator.[10]

Now, it is not to say that the final edit is not more detailed but note that the original work is still present in some wording and the original piece would have eventually reached the same place, however, not with comments such as "Eh, whatever. Anything else anyone?" "the reference section was ruined," "that's not how you cite sources, plus you ruined the infobox"... basically, taking on all comers until this editor established his priority (I'm only assuming a "he"). I simply gave up and moved on, but then the same thing happened on another article I had written, again coming from the same editor. After these last two incidents and a slew of deletions of film article images, other work came up that revolved around my writing for publication. Looking at the deadlines that were ahead, I chose to devote more time to the writing assignments and give Wiki world a rest. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Wiki Google

Have you seen this search engine? The project page is [User:Nicolas1981/Wikipedia Reference Search here], and you can request the addition of sources that are not already on the list. I figured if the search master wasn't aware, that he would like it very much. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

White Dog

Yesterday (Ferbuary 23) I selected the article and started reviewing it. When I logged in today, I found you already did a review. Next time, could you give the reviewer who actually selected an article time to do their review first, or at least inform them of your efforts? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you decide to review an article, please don't forget to put up the relevant notice beforehand. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I am truly sorry about that! It looks like I chose it for review, did my review, then put it on hold. I never noticed that you had put it on hold when I put up my own message. :( I will do the "on hold" template in advance in the future... I just don't review GANs that often, and I wanted to do quid pro quo when putting up Valkyrie (film). I'll need to review another article to give myself peace of mind, haha... —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't put it on hold yet, but I did have the "this article is being reviewed" up. I'm just glad you didn't make the same comments I did... - Mgm|^(talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I meant the use of the {{GAReview}} template when the status was not on hold. Go ahead with the review. And yeah, the primary contributor got lucky with two sets of comments for the article! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Did Collectonian properly address the issues you raised in your review? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, she did. Go ahead and promote it as a Good Article! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Educator Assistance for Movie Back Stories

An Administrator suggested that I inform this project about a newly revised website which helps teachers use movies in class. It is a non-commercial site which earns no income. It provides links to primary sources, like national archives, and links to secondary sources such as Google Books. I'm not sure who to inform, and I didn't want to raise the issue in a more public setting (so as to avoid unintentionally breaking any Wiki rules), so I thought I would give the information to you. Here is the link to the film section of the site. http://www.awesomestories.com/flicks --Coverage1600 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for asking me! It appears that you have been adding this website as an external link. It is important to remember that the primary goal of Wikipedia is to provide information upfront and not to serve as a repository of links to off-wiki sources. In addition, the information each "flick" page covers seems like information that would already be included in the article if it was developed (see WP:ELNO, #1). My opinion, based on my time here on Wikipedia, is that it should not be used as an external link. It could possibly be used as a reference, but the website will have to fall under reliable source criteria. For example, the contributors appear to be reliable, but the publisher does not, the website being self-published. If you would like additional opinions, feel free to start a wider discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. You won't be breaking any Wiki rules! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks. I thought it would be a way for school districts to allow the use of Wikipedia as a source because of all the site's links to primary materials at various national archives, libraries and government sites like NASA. I am an educator, and the policy rules at least for us are that our students are not permitted to cite Wikipedia as a resource. (I don't make the rules!) We do allow them to use Wikipedia if it leads them to non-Wikipedia sites, like those you list in your external links. Our students may use Wikipedia as a starting point but not as a cited source. --Coverage1600 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - March 2009

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Horror Collaboration of the Month

You supported [[None]], which has been selected as WikiProject Horror's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. hornoir (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Valkyrie

Eh...you're probably right. I have been guilty of overlinking in the past, I suppose. Why don't you go ahead and remove whichever ones you think are too much (unless you want me to do it, just let me know). And sorry I'm taking so long with the review; I will have comments in the review page tonight, and they won't be very much so I'm sure this will be a GA very soon. Good article! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just wanted to check in. I conducted the GAN review for Valkyrie, but saw you haven't responded yet. I'd hate for this one not to pass due to inactivity when it's so close to GA status. Were you planning on taking a look and doing the changes? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • lol, My mistake. Just go it it from the "the review page" link on the top of the talk page. Take your time with it. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it Erik! I will make sure I will make sure to update the theatrical section numbers too the next time. Thanks, Siva —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgunda (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Astro Boy and fame 2009

Hello i added a new reference in wikipedia Astro Boy (film) and Fame (2009 film) you delete this reference by saying it is Spam, please tell me how these references is Spam. these references is simply the trailer of the particular movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.141.89 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC) --122.161.141.89 (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WWTDD

Hi Erik,

I re-added information on the gossip site What Would Tyler Durden Do? to the Fight Club (film) page. Given the popularity of the site, I do not believe this bit of information is at all trivial. I believe it's important to show this notable cultural impact of the film on the web. BigBrightStars (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I started discussion at Talk:Fight Club (film)#What Would Tyler Durden Do? —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Erik! Thanks for the advice. (I'm curious . . . how did you happen to see a message on my talk page?) I will initiate the discussion as you suggested, but am uncertain as to what happens next. Do I wait a reasonable amount of time to see if anyone responds and, if not, revert the information that was removed? Or do I revert it now and explain why on the discussion page? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I started a discussion at [3] if you care to comment. Thanks again. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Iron Man II

Do you think this photo of the set under construction with the director and cameraman mean Iron Man II now passes WP:NFF? Alientraveller (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite yet. Aren't sets constructed during pre-production? I would say it's pretty close, though. When is filming supposed to begin? I don't see anything at Iron Man (film)#Sequel. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Favreau said April on his twitter account I think. Alientraveller (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club

Hey there. I can't live with "crossing a milestone;" it isn't done. I'm trying ground-breaking. Which ref supports the claim about the film's political impact/influence?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just curious. As a film fan, what did you think of The Watchmen?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This says, "With Fight Club, Fincher emerged as the head of a new generation of film-makers who not only reflected a new mood in American political life (the Seattle anti-capitalist riots erupted two months after its release), but also embraced new developments in film-making technology that enabled advances in cinematic form and style. Fight Club stands alongside Magnolia, Being John Malkovich and Three Kings - all released in the same year - as evidence of this turning point." Feel free to tweak it to be more specific. I have yet to see Watchmen -- will be doing so tomorrow, hopefully -- but these are the films I've seen recently. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

Wow, this must be what it was like when 2001 or Blade Runner or Fight Club came out. This is a good read. So, is it being captioned this weekend? Alientraveller (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure yet. The state where I go to school does not have rear-window captioning. There is an open-captioned theater an hour away; until Friday, it is screening Fired Up. I'm checking a website to find out if Watchmen will be captioned this Friday. Hopefully will find out by tomorrow morning, but my gut feeling is that it will be captioned next week or never. My spring break is coming up in a couple of weeks, though, and I am going to the East Coast, which has quite a few more theaters, especially in the Virginia and Maryland area. We'll see if I can find a theater with captioned Watchmen. (This should give me time to re-read it, anyway, with annotations!) And nice link! I found the Lee Iacocca blurb pretty surprising. That can't sit well with him, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Saw it, it was very worthy of its source material. The adaptation reminded me of Tony's copyediting guidelines: you got great content, but you get to the point in reiterating that story to others. I think the fact there were actors there, it started to put things in perspective, I felt more sympathy towards the Comedian and Rorschach while Manhattan came across as a bit gormless. Alientraveller (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not a comic book villain." :) Alientraveller (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no! Snyder can't read! It says "Republic serial villain"! :) I liked the film, but at the same time, I can see what negative reviews meant by adhering so closely to the source material. Loved all the Easter eggs, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Or Hayter. Did your favorite characters not the ones from the source material? Rorshach or Nite Owl was my favourite in the film but not the novel. Alientraveller (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tales of the Black Freighter

Could you help sort out attribution for this article, before I nominate it for DYK? It's built out of stuff from the comic and film articles. It'll probably be you, WesleyDodds, and me (I did the lead section) who are the "primary" authors. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out on that article's talk page, making an article about both the source material from the comic and the DVD is problematic and unnecessary. We only need an article on the DVD. You can comment there about it if you like. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I really regret taking on the Watchmen article as a project. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't have regrets. You overhauled an article in great need of one in time for the film adaptation's release. If my anecdotal account of seeing people mention this was the first time they have heard of Watchmen, then they really had a great place to go to learn about it, if not the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I mean I am proud of the work that went into it (which I honestly could not have done without you), but the amount of effort that goes into maintaining it doesn't really balance out with the amount of satisfaction I get from working on it. You should see the talk page. My god. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Hi User:Erik,
This film article got a C rating in the nominee.
Um... I've edited it more, and am wondering if I should add a Trivia section.
Because, Polly Draper (the writer and director of the film, and the boys' mom) is best known for her role on Thirtysomething; Michael Wolff is known for leading the band on The Arsenio Hall Show, it's not on topic of the film, but it's an important fact, so they might ring a bell for those reading it who was born in the baby boomers; Albie Hecht being the founder of Spike TV; and that this is Draper's directing debut and her screenwriting debut was with The Tic Code.
Would that be good on a Trivia section or should it be in a different category?
Oh, would you also know how to improve the article more then I did and, maybe, even if you could find more information for the Filming section that's a subcategory of Production.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:TRIVIA; such sections are discouraged as the article develops. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Valkyrie The Film

I don't quite understand your objection to my change to Valkyrie (Film). I thought those who watched the movie would be interested to know what parts in the film were historically accurate and what parts were changed. That Olbricht was the first to propose Valkyrie plan, that Eta von Tresckow and Margarette von Oven, etc are not my original research but related in history books such as History of German Resistance (Hoffmann). I don't understand your objection to the sources being pre-movie since there were no new development about what we know about Valkyrie since these books came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theilian (talk • contribs) 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions to the film article are original research because they make novel connections between historical sources and the film itself. You are offering personally created items of value by offering factoids unrelated to the film in the context of the film. That's why I mentioned the sources being published before the film was released; it is demonstrably clear that such sources have no commentary about the film. This is only an argument to preempt the real issue because even if a book was published this year about Operation Valkyrie and did not mention the film at all, it still cannot be used in context of the film. If we personally compared and contrasted every item between historical sources and the film, it would be an indiscriminate list with no inherent way to demonstrate the significance of any point. That's why we only include comparisons and contrasts as published by independent authorities. That's why the "Historical accuracy" section explicitly compares and contrasts film and history. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Elections

Hi Erik, would you like to vote for me in the Wikiproject Film Coordinators Elections? Shamwow86 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

Hi Erik, it's been a while since I've been here, but I just want to tell you about something that has occurred. Shamwow86 has left a questionable message on my talk page:

"Listen, Limetolime, most people out there are saying you're finished, done. Your time came and went. We all know it's true. But listen, we both need votes in this election, and if you'll scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Your friend, Shamwow86"

What's up? Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you have your answer already on other pages. For the election, it appears that we are somewhat assuming good faith about the candidate. I personally believe that even if the candidate somehow squeaked through the election, he would not have remained. It seems to be an unfortunate (and ultimately useless) abuse of the system, considering that coordinator position has no particular privileges and is more of an obligation to actively participate in specific tasks. I would not worry too much about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Expendables (Film)

Hi Erik. I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expendables (2010 film) and was wondering if you might take a look at The Expendables (Film); do you have an opinion as to whether this ought to be speedied, or remain? Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:NFF since filming was not underway. Since it has now begun, the article is warranted. I suggest moving the article to The Expendables (2010 film) and restoring the previous page history. Article could use some clean-up, too... —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but before I proceed, check out my talk page, where User:Bignole suggested a different course... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Bignole's assessment. With the players in this film, there will undoubtedly be coverage, even if very little exists now. I think that WP:NFF is best applied for situations where a film is never actually pursued. For example, Pinkville had a notable director and a couple of notable actors attached, but since it never reached filming, it was just a few headlines relegated to a section in the article of the subject matter. For The Expendables, since it is filming with such major cast and crew, I really do not see a reason for the article not to exist now. —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My assessment is merely based on the wording of WP:NFF, which says that the production itself must be notable. If it said, "must be notable, or show evidence that it can be notable", then I would say go ahead. But if there is nothing to report on the movie beyond the people in it, why does it actually need a whole page to say that? The movie is filled with has-beens (God love in the 80s and 90s), but it isn't guaranteed to gain any press on the actual production of the film. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but does this need to be our lesson that just because a film is stacked with stars doesn't mean the film will get any coverage until after it is all completed filming and starts getting marketed?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to follow the spirit of the guidelines. This is definitely a clear incidence of a film that has notability... it's underway, so whether or not there's enough coverage right now, there will be coverage to demonstrate clear notability and to provide enough content for a full-fledged film article. We don't have to be aggressive with deletion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion wasn't to delete, just merely move any reliably sourced information to Stallone's article, given that it's Stallone's film (one he's been working on for some time, according to the rumor mill). At the moment the existing page doesn't even have reliably sourced information (not to mention that it's at the wrong title). Based on this search, we can get an idea of who's going to be in the film, but I cannot find too much as far as actual production goes. Has the movie even started filming? My Google News is having trouble finding anything, and the closest I can get is from IMDb News, where in some interview a publicist or someone said that filming would begin later this month (March). It just seems a bit biased that we force most other movies to actually show notability in production, but give this one leeway merely because of the star power attached to it. My issue is not that the film might not get made, because I'm sure it will, but more that does a couple of sentences about who is going to be in the film actually warrant a whole separate page right now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say: if this film is for real, I need to watch it so bad. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's like the cinematic version of this! —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

. . . I think I might have to change my desktop image. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the page keeps getting re-created, and is improperly named, I just moved it to The Expendables (2010 film) after fixing all of the redirects. I pulled the information off of your subpage so that it has some sources. Later this week, and as more sources become available when filming starts, I'll expand on the references. I wish editors would have waited to re-create the article but it's too late now. I must say that is a cool looking picture though! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Centurion

Hi Erik! This film is really to new to judge cats but judging by the director's style and ouevre and allmovie calling it an action film you could add Category:2000s action films, but that's all I'd say for now. I'll add it myself. Otherwise, it would be too "crystal ball-ish" to say for certain. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Would It Be Alright--

--If I copied your User Page Format? No hard feelings if you say, "No." RyanGFilm (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---Thanks! I noticed on some editors' user pages that they mention who they got their formats from so I thought I'd just give a courtesy call. Thanks a bunch. RyanGFilm (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Future film

I probably should have looked before I leapt in reverting you, but I'm a little unsure of the distinction you're trying to make here. I don't see how it is advantageous to have two nearly identical templates as opposed to one. PC78 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They're not similar at all. The problem is that {{Future film}} is a temporal template, and it should not be used in the section of a broader article because the way we treat such projects, they're not "upcoming films" until shooting begins. {{Future films list}} can be used for articles like List of fantasy films:2000s because they can be temporal templates for the "Forthcoming" sections, which eventually disappear when the decade expires. If we use {{Future film}} in article section, we are saying, yes, this is an upcoming film, as if an article should already exist about it. Let me know if this makes sense or not. That's why the "or section" language is needless. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example. Shantaram (film) is a "Film adaptation" section on the novel article. If for whatever reason there is never any advancement to the production of this planned film, which is more likely than not, we can't apply such a template. It's just going to set around for years, possibly forever, and as a result, it's just going to be a template that clutters the novel article needlessly. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I follow. In real terms the two templates are more or less identical; the only difference is a slight variance in language, but this was already covered in the previous wording of {{future film}}. I honestly don't see any distinction between the use of one template in (for example) Inglourious Basterds, and the other template in a section of List of fantasy films:2000s – in both cases the template is saying and doing the same thing.

From what you've said above it seems that your issue is with the use of the template in sections of articles such as Shantaram (novel), but I don't think this is a problem that can be solved by splitting and rewording the template itself. Rather, I think the best course of action would be to better document the template's usage and simply remove it from any articles where it doesn't belong (as I believe you already have done). PC78 (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But why is there any use for a template in the section of a broader article? The {{Future film}} template applies to articles about films being produced, while {{Future films list}} marks sections temporally, meaning that they won't stay forever. One template can't cover both; we can't leave "or section" in the wording like it could be used at a place like Shantaram (novel)#Film adaptation. Essentially, {{Future film}} applies to an individual "upcoming film" that is sure to come out. {{Future films list}} applies to a section's temporary grouping of "upcoming films" that are sure to come out. Can such different applications really be reconciled? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, was going to say something else but now I'm not sure. :) Perhaps there is sufficient scope for having two templates, but I think they would each need some work to make them more distinctive. I'll mull it over, but a third opinion wouldn't hurt. PC78 (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me prompt the issue at WT:FILM today since it's a systemic issue. It's always been a misapplication of the template that's bothered me, so I was bold in specifying how to apply it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)