User talk:Erik/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Hello

Hi, Erik! I asked you this once before and you never responded. How is it you happen to see comments on my talk page? I certainly have no objection to your participating in a discussion on it, but I'm curious what it is that draws you there at all. Do you have it on your watchlist? Thanks (and good luck with the election!) . . . LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not responding about that earlier! Your user page and your user talk page are on my watchlist from our earlier discussions. I have several other editors' pages watchlisted, too. Sometimes other editors and I help each other out, like if a newcomer asks one of us for help, and if that person is not available, one of the others can respond to that newcomer. Hope you don't mind my occasional weighing in! I just consider you an up-and-coming editor and wanted to help provide clarification whenever possible. If this is too bothersome, please let me know. I won't be offended! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I have no qualms about your watching and contributing to my talk page whenever you feel like it. Your feedback always is welcome. I just wondered how you happen to see some of the discussions there, and now I know! LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. How do you get your signature to show (talk • contrib) after it? Mine only shows (talk) and I don't even know how that happens! LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
At the top of any Wikipedia page, when you are logged in, click on "My Preferences." Under the "User profile" tab, you will see a "Signature:" field. You can place coding in the textbox next to it. This is the text that exists in mine: —<font face="Palatino Linotype">[[User:Erik|Erik]]</font> ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) Feel free to copy and tweak it! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I copied it (substituting LiteraryMaven for Erik, of course), and when I tested it my signature looked like —<font face="Palatino Linotype">[[User:LiteraryMaven|LiteraryMaven]]</font> ([[User talk:LiteraryMaven|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LiteraryMaven|contrib]]) (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC). I am so computer illiterate when it comes to the technical side of things! LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a little treat in appreciation of all your patience! LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out. I needed to check the box that says "Raw Signature." Remember to always tell a computer moron every step he needs to take to accomplish something because sometimes the obvious isn't! :) Now . . . where do I find a list of different fonts I can use so we don't look like twins? And why is this comment appearing to the right of your cookie instead of under it? (Sorry if I'm being a pest!!!) LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Text will typically wrap around an image automatically, unless told not to (hence why your comment isn't under the image). If I were you, I'd go into WORD and just look at different fonts. When you find the one you like just substitute the name of it for the one in your code, and you should be straight. If Wiki doesn't recognize it then you'll know, because it should look plain.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Bignole! But how do you "tell" the text not to wrap around the image? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Other than manually adding {{-}} to the line below the image (which would force the text below the image it would do so for everyone viewing the page), I'm not away of a personal preference option (just looked) that allows you to deselect any type of "text wrap".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! For your help, feel free to take a bite from Erik's cookie. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that you got the signature worked out, and thanks for the cookie! —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See Also

Hi Erik, long time since we exchanged posts. Hope you are doing well! per your post in the WikiProject Film article. I'd be interested in offering a support to including information. While I do make an effort to avoid editors who strongly and loudly remove information, I am most willing to supply a support posting for information such as "See also" sections, or film ratings. If you create a RfC, or write up a proposal page somewhere, I'd be more than happy to chip in my humble opinion. Just drop me a line anytime, let me know where the page/proposal is - and I'll be there. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 18:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am doing great! :) Hope you are well, too. Regarding the "See also" discussion taking place at WT:FILM, I think that it is still early in the discussion to finalize consensus about how to address such sections. I think we just need to use this opportunity to get all editors to understand where everyone is coming from and to weigh the pros and cons of using such sections. I'm still pondering the best way to approach such sections, especially with WP:SEEALSO in mind. Let's see where the discussion goes; if it leads to interest in shaping something solid, I'll definitely let you know. As for ratings, I am more for excluding them when there is nothing but the rating itself to mention. We recently had discussion to delete an infobox where one could list all of a film's ratings. I think this reflects consensus to include ratings where there is substance to them, meaning something beyond the mere assignment and description. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

filminformation.blogspot.com

Thanks for spotting this (though you may not have noticed yet). Filminformation.blogspot.com is a redirect site for filmtaka.com. The latter was already blacklisted here on en.wikipedia as it was inappropriately pushed by a handful of sockpuppets. When it was not removed from the blacklist, they started to circumvent the blacklist. I have now updated the talkpages of all the editors involved, and blacklisted filminformation.blogspot.com. I also de-linked it on your page. Thanks again! --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate you letting me know! —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking for a big favor

Hey Erik, I wanted to ask you for a big favor. I'm dealing with some major off-Wiki personal problems right now, and thus can't devote much time to Wikipedia right now (even when I can, it's hard for me to get in the mood to edit a lot). I wanted to ask if you could watch and maintain Watchmen for the forseeable future; it's one of the most taxing articles I work on, and since you were an essential part of the FAR rewrite, you would be well-suited to keeping it in shape. In return, once I am back to full Wiki-editing capacity I offer to help you bring the article of your choice to FA-quality standards. Let me know on my talk page if you can keep a eye on the article. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

I need to rely on your expertise yet again. Is it acceptable to quote liberally from this source [1] in the article Design for Living? On my discussion page, User:Ssilvers supports doing so with the comment "It is ABSOLUTELY OK to give a SOURCE's POV, just not our own, as long as attribution is given. If you have more than one POV from multiple sources, you can say "Critic X says it's the greatest thing ever, but Critic Y says it sucks." It is useful to tell readers what commentators believe about the work of art." While I agree quoting a critical review is not only acceptable but expected, I'm not sure if that's the same as quoting the unidentified individual who wrote the analysis I referenced above. I'm uncertain whether the statement "Lubitsch made Paramount the ne plus ultra of sophisticated sexiness" can be considered a fact or one man's POV, and if it's the latter, do we need to know exactly who it is before we quote him? Also, are descriptions like "versatile Paramount contract player Fredric March" and "handsome Gary Cooper" OK? Feeling I'm on unsure footing, I don't want to engage in a discussion with SSilvers, especially if I'm mistaken, so your guidance is appreciated. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Ssilvers said to you about attributing opinions, including analysis. For example, at Apt Pupil (film)#Themes, I am citing a couple of books at the moment that analyze the film in different ways. They are not necessarily contradictory viewpoints, just different ways to look at the film. I think that my main concern with the source you mentioned is that it does not come off as immediately reliable. It is not the best presentation of "scholarly material". It would be better to find this material published elsewhere in a more professional manner, and especially signed. However, it's not a source that's a huge cause for alarm. Basically, it would be better to make effort to find similar information presented in a more reputable light. Lastly, I do not think that descriptions like "versatile" and "handsome" are necessary. If versatility or appearance really were reasons for these persons' involvements, then it should be more clearly specified, otherwise it looks like flavorful language. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Many sources that I've seen imply that Cooper's appearance was the reason that he was cast, and I added a specific citation about Cooper's handsomeness to the article after you wrote this, that LiteraryMaven has deleted. Would you kindly take a look? I think the quote that I had added helps to explain why Cooper was cast in the role. I leave it to you; I can't argue about this any more - it has really ruined my whole day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Liza with a Z

Hi there! I created a new article for the TV concert film Liza with a Z today, and - as you're a co-ordinator for the films WikiProject - I was wondering if you can take a quick look at it for me? I'm also not sure how to get it to show up in the page for the WikiProject's new articles. I very rarely create new pages, so I hope it's ok. Many thanks Howie ☎ 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Article looks great! I added the {{Film}} template to the talk page, reassessing the article as Start-class. Do you think it's closer to B-class instead? I am not familiar with how much coverage exists for a concert film like this. The article looks populated with the right categories. One change I would make is to remove the "Emmy and Peabody award-winning" from the first sentence of the lead section. Such phrasing is too vague to start out an article since it attaches an unnecessary air of importance to the topic while not being clear what awards it won. (An example I dealt with sometime ago was "Superman Returns is an Academy Award-nominated superhero film..." and the nomination was revealed to be for visual effects later in the section.) Otherwise, I think the article can qualify as a DYK candidate! :) Let me know if you have any questions. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the positive feedback. I've looked at the criteria for B-Class articles and I do feel that it seems to fit. I made sure to find as many references as possible. There's not so much info readily available about the initial release, but there is a lot of coverage about the 2005/6 re-master, which is where the bulk of my references come from. I'm not entirely sure about any other coverage; not living in the country of origin probably doesn't help! I've also rephrased the opening sentence so it now just says "Liza with a Z is an award-winning 1972 concert film...", but I could remove all reference to awards if you think necessary? Thanks once again Howie ☎ 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
MOS:FILM#Lead section says, "Avoid using the phrase 'award-winning' in the opening sentence of the lead section, as it provides insufficient context to the reader. Instead, provide a short overview of any significant awards and honors later in the lead section." So I think that it should be removed. :) We generally expect people to read lead sections for an overview of the article body, so it's safe to say that they will go through it and know on some level that the concert film won awards. I poked around a couple of film databases for additional coverage, but there does not seem to be anything major you're missing. I found a review at Entertainment Weekly, but you can read it faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". The lack of coverage (at least as a film) makes me think that it may be better covered by music databases (which also makes me realize it should be in the scope of WikiProject Music Albums). Maybe check with that WikiProject to see if there are good places to find coverage about concert films before bumping the article up to B-class? Not sure how dedicated you are to expanding the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, thank you for the feedback, it's appreciated. I just popped over here to say I've greatly expanded the soundtrack section to find that you've mentioned the exact same thing! I'll adjust the lead once more too. Thanks! Howie ☎ 21:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Erik, I don't know if you go in for these, but...

The Barnstar of Diligence
Just to say a big thank you for your valued and informative feedback when helping me write the Liza with a Z article Howie ☎ 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar! :D It has been quite some time since I've gotten one, so I greatly appreciate it! I was happy to be of some help with Liza with a Z and applaud a terrific contribution to Wikipedia. If you plan any film-related endeavors in the future, don't hesitate to get in touch with me for some collaboration. (Offer applies to current article, too... I'd be happy to take a look at newspaper databases to see if there is any coverage about the concert film, if you wish so.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Image requests

When asking for an image to upload to Wikimedia Commons, it has to have a certain license or it will be deleted. Currently, Commons will accept public domain, GFDL, Creative Commons Attribution, or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. I usually ask the author if they are willing to release it under the last three licenses as it will include their names. I provide links to these licenses for them to take a look at it (which can be found GFDL, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA). I point out that their image will be seen by thousands (possibly more) and that a link can be provided back to their website from the image's page. In order to prevent the image from being deleted, make sure the author sends back a message stating which image(s) (either by their file name, description, or the url they are located at) as well as what license they want the image(s) to be released under. I usually ask for "Let me know if the image can be used for the free encyclopedia whenever it is convenient for you. If you do choose so, please reply back saying "I agree to release the image "IMAGE NAME" under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, the Creative Commons Attribution, or the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike." (whichever one of the three licenses you want to pick)." Make sure that the author does not say that the image can only be used for Wikipedia, as the image could be used on other websites and possibly even commercially if released under these above licenses (I've seen some of my images used in online newspapers and even a cruise ship brochure). You are also trying to convince the author to let us use their image, and although some are eager to allow the use for Wikipedia, some sell their work or are just not interested. Don't be discouraged if they don't reply back, I've sent out dozens to hundreds of requests that went unanswered or were rejected. Let me know if you need further clarification or if you'd like me to e-mail you a form message I use. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Image using policy.

But why? It's to illustrate the article. Every film deserves to have a poster.

World Cinema Writer (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Knowing review

Hi. Ebert's review is his opinion. The film may well have received more moderate reviews elsewhere, but you should not exclude the review because it was positive - this way the article is being drawn towards a bias viewpoint. Also, I think you'll find that the reviewer from the paper is actually a male, seeing as I know them.143.167.224.155 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band (TV series)

Hey User:Erik,
I was wondering if you could give me some advice, regarding the "reception" section and some other quality information, because I want to help it be nominated for the WP:GAN.
Besides the two construction signs I put up, which I am still working.
Also, I have a question. I nominated The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article and it got a C Class grade.
Since I worked on it some more and it improved way more since then; could I re-nominate the article?
Thanx!
ATC . Talk 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure what is the best way to write the "Reception" section of a TV series article since there are multiple episodes. I cannot recall what are good resources to use to write about how a TV series is received in general. I suggest asking at WT:TV for some input about that.
For your film article, I think that it needs more development before it can be a Good Article. Some recommended improvements to make:
  1. The "Plot" section could be further shortened since this is not a complicated film. A good rule of thumb is that if you are quoting someone, you are probably being too specific about a given scene. To write in broader strokes! :)
  2. "Pre-production" takes place before "Filming", but I think this section's details are related to filming. So just move "Pre-production" detail to "Filming".
  3. For the list of actors and their roles, I strongly encourage for in-film descriptions to be very brief; no more than a sentence. (However, you can write at leisure about the real-world context behind each actor and their role.) For the "Special appearances" section, since these appearances are not primary ones, I suggest collapsing the entire list into a paragraph identifying the celebrities. For example, "Celebrities who made special appearances in the film include Cyndi Lauper, Julianne Moore, Tony Shalhoub, Uma Thurman, Arsenio Hall..."
  4. I do not think that the "Releases and debuts" section is necessary unless there is a release date worth noting besides the main American release date.
  5. Lastly, I recommend cleaning up the references to be more presentable. For example, you reference this, and it shows the whole URL. If you use a {{cite news}} template, you can make it look like this: Steinberg, Jacques (September 22, 2007). "Famous for Playing Rock Stars". The New York Times. Retrieved March 30, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
Let me know if you have any questions about my suggestions! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the references with the {{cite news}} tags, it is too much for me to process.
I hope I'm not asking too much, but since I goofed on a lot of them, could you fix them and do the {{cite news}} tags.
Oh, and do you have knowledge about the "Reception" section regarding for the film article?
Thanx!
ATC . Talk 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes does not have any reviews, and Metacritic does not list the film at all. Does not look like you will find conventional reviews; the only one that could be used is the Variety review that you already cite a few times in the article. Googling for reviews does not provide anything that resembles a reliable source. Can you remind me later to check newspaper databases for any useful reviews of the film? Also, for the templates, I can provide some step-by-step guidance. That way, you can use the template from here on! —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well actually regarding "Reception". The film was independent and turned into the pilot episode for the series, and sources say the series brought Nickelodeon's highest-rated premiere in seven years. But I'm pretty sure that the source is referring to the debut of the series. Let me check the date of the reference, then I can determine that. ATC . Talk 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that's why I can't help you with this particular film... I'm accustomed to finding reception information for theatrically released films. I think that the best place to look is DVD periodicals... I imagine that there are reviews of the film and the contents of its DVD. I'm not sure which sources are reliable, though; there are a lot of self-published DVD websites out there that may not be so authoritative. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

World Cinema Writer

Why can't he edit the language edition of Wiki he's actually fluent in? He obviously doesn't understand WP:NFF due to language barriers. Alientraveller (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw what happened with Iron Man II, but I'm unclear about what you're wanting to do. Looks like WCW had a draft sub-page that he moved to Iron Man II (film), then it was moved again to Iron Man II. I see you modified Iron Man (film) to acknowledge this; is production well underway or not? I was kind of under the impression that you or Wildroot had the sequel article drafted and waiting somewhere... do we need to request some kind of merge or move? —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Election results

Hey, I only just checked here. For some reason I thought the election had one more week to run (might be an idea to post an announcement to WT:FILM with the results?). I see you've been elected as lead coordinator, and that you've actually accepted the position this time! Congratulations; I can't think of an editor who'd be more thorough and dedicated to this kind of role. Steve T • C 21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think that we are announcing election results in the March 2009 newsletter (Nehrams2020 already wrote it up), but I agree that it may be prudent to mention the results at WT:FILM, too. I decided to accept being a lead coordinator because I think I have a little more free time than Girolamo these days. I am not particularly stressed the rest of this semester (set with my job, so going through the motions). I'm already brainstorming for the new tranche at User:Erik/Coordinators. Feel free to review it and share your thoughts! I'm hoping to get a message out to all coordinators tonight, but my plate is a little full... tomorrow might be better. There's a lot I look forward to doing! :) Glad to see that you're fine-tuning your writing skills, especially with Changeling! You'll have to let me know when you do put it up for the FAC process. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 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) 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ye of the access to film journal databases

Hello there. If you have the time and will, I'm moving on from Star Trek I to new film articles and was wondering if you could grab some possible sources for Star Trek: First Contact and Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (mmm... Peter Weir...) Thanks, --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! Give me 24 hours (may be too busy tonight). Are you not going to pursue the FAC process for Star Trek: The Motion Picture? The peer review was one of the biggest I've seen for a film article! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That bugger still has a couple hundred words to be added and then the whole ~75KB bugger needs to be copyedited... that might be a job for the end of April but I'm in no hurry to run through it right now ('sides, after the college semester ends I won't have access to the university interlibrary loan until next August, so I got to grab the hard to find sources while I can!) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Star Trek: First Contact (British Film International and Film Literature Index) and Master and Commander (BFI only; nothing at FLI). —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Righto, grabbed them (at least since these are more recent I should have much more success!) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood FLC

Thanks for stopping by. I responded to your comments, and have removed the "year in"/"television in" links. I didn't remove the green yeses yet as I want to ensure that there is consensus (since other FLs that have passed have used it with no problems). Anyway, please see my comments there and let me know if you notice anything else. Thanks again. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well... can it be lighter green at least? :) I do love the color scheme for List of awards and nominations received by Clint Eastwood, though! The FLC is on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on it. I am sure we will figure out some guidelines for articles like these, not to mention film festivals and film organizations... we will have to shape our agenda accordingly this term as coordinators! By the way, when I read your "forever" comment about being re-elected, I was thinking to myself, "Come edit with us, Nehrams, edit with us forever." :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I was just using the standard Template:Yes. Should I consider using the Yes2 (it's shown on the template's page)? It's a really light green, maybe too light in my opinion. I also like the color scheme I did for the awards/nominations for Eastwood, but if that were ever to go to FLC I'm sure that it would have to be removed. When I nominated Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography, WP:COLOR was cited for removing the color in the headings of the tables. Maybe that's why I used the green yeses...to finally have some color in these lists. I still have yet to see The Shining (it's in my queue right now), but I did see One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest recently and enjoyed Nicholson's role in that. I also watched the original Inglorious Bastards today in preparation for the upcoming remake. It will be interesting to see Tarantino's take on it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have not worked much at all with color on Wikipedia; rarely have reason with individual film articles! My impression is that it takes a keen sense of aesthetics to do a color scheme well, and I do not see green- and red-shaded cells as achieving that aesthetic. For the list of awards, though, I thought you nailed it! :) What was specifically cited in WP:COLOR (never been there before!) to remove a similar scheme from Arnie's filmography? —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I also haven't worked with it too much except for creating user boxes in my early days on Wikipedia and trying these FLs. No specific reason was cited, except that two different editors cited the page. You can see one of the earlier revisions when the headings used colors (including the award color scheme I thought worked well) before it was suggested to be removed. I'm assuming it has to do with color blind readers, and in that case, I'm not sure or not if the green in this list contrasts well for those readers. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Help question.

I'd try Wikipedia:Non-free content review? that might be the best place, or at least the best place to get referred to the best place. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:TALK

I have started the discussion there now. —Mythdon (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

O mi lord, hoo ever wood have thot sumthing as simpil as a tipo cood cos so much truble. ;) (p.s. I appreciate you trying to clarify my edits with respect to the guideline on my behalf).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't like the idea of an editor out there reverting others because of typo corrections, so I wanted to clarify the matter. I was hoping that my outside opinion would do so, but it looks like it will take several more to have the breakthrough revelation that WP:REDACT does not apply that stringently. No problem with stepping in... I was avoiding a paper at the time, and I still am this AM. —Erik (talk • contrib) 10:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Hello

I took a look through your thoughts and although I would like to respond in more detail I have a class I need to get to in about 20 minutes, which gives me precious little time to reply. On your first point, I have seen very little of WP:FILMS. Truth be told I almost didn't leave a message, but after thinking it through I decided that it would be best to do so since your project is principly concerned with film article on Wikipedia and thus in a better position to address concerns to a film article's layout if issues arise. I will need to catch up with FILM policy to better handle issues related to film articles. On the issue of advice, although it relates principally to milhist, there are a collection of essays with advice to coordinators from current and past coordinators located about half way down this page. These essays provide our milhist coordinators with advice and guidance on coordinatorship, and may be of use to you and your staff for the upcoming term.

On the other matter: I am spellogically challenged, so any post of mine in an article or elsewhere should be copyeditted asap. As luck would have it though I am big on thinking and have in the past been responisble for some of the big changes at milhist, like our use of star insignias to the coordinators and the initial idea to have the chevron w/oak leaves award handed out by coordinators for our project. I am fairly certain that I can suggest a few things for your project's betterment as well once I get a feel for how things are done, although the desiscion to implement will be left to your projects major contributors. At any rate, thanks for the welcome, and I hope that I will not let your down. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link to the page! I just listed it as reading material. Feel free to drop by my talk page any time with any new thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Having taken a little more time to look through the project I find its bigger than I initially gave it credit for, but I would offer one very important piece of advice to your project as a whole based on the comment you left on my talk page concerning milhist: what works for one project may not work for another project. I think that it would therefore be a good idea to spend some time duing the next six monthes auditting the film project, specifically looking at what you have borrowed from milhist and whether or not those borrowed things work as well as they could. From the size of your contribution base I see a total of about 200 active members vs the nearly 900 active members we at milhist have. As a result of the sheer size of our project our processes are desiigned to think broadly, while my instict tells me that the film project may benifit more from a narrower interpretation of certain borrowed aspects of our project. Just something worth thinking about; as Ronald Reagan once pointed out, government can at times be the problem more than the solution. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ClockworkSoul/Igor

No idea, never seen it before. Looking at the talk page it seems like it may be inactive and have a number of issues. If I get chance I may download it and have a play. PC78 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username/Usurpations#Erikster_to_Erik

Hey, just wanted to let you know I've responded to your aforementioned query. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of links to external websites

Erik, you seem to be the perfect person to whom to ask my burning question.

For over 3 years now (Courtens (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) (I) have been adding links to the Wikipedia website about upcoming movies on the Radiolinkshollywood.comwebsite. Each time, about 2 months later after adding the link, the link gets removed. And not too long ago, a link was removed by you.

What is the reason for these links being removed? I think the added links provide valuable and needed information about the movies.

The MP3 clips, which are only accessible through the links I post, are produced by Lori Lerner. The MP3 clips are always approved by the studios (the distribution companies) before they get posted on Lori's website. Her website is not a membership-only website and provides the service of listening to "behind-the-scenes" audio features of upcoming movies. They are much like an "audio trailer" with added commentary by Lori.

Do you have have access to my sandbox? There I started a draft about Radiolinkshollywood.com much like Imdb or Rotten Tomatoes has, but there I provided more information about her services and her contributions. Lori Lerner's website provides similar information as the above mentioned websites -- but obviously on a different level and scale. When I published the article about Radiolinkshollywood.com, the Wikipedia editors rejected it!

Will you please help me? Your suggestions and help will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtens (talk • contribs) 14:02, April 3, 2009

Hello, I'll be happy to explain about adding and removing external links to Wikipedia. First of all, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository of links. No one person means to contribute to such a repository, but merely adding a link to the "External links" section does not help build Wikipedia. There are external links to be avoided; links that are acceptable are those that "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". The Internet Movie Database provides a thorough list of cast and crew information (where Wikipedia's film articles only mention the major ones), and Rotten Tomatoes provides a collection of many reviews (where Wikipedia's film articles only use select reviews for its "Reception" sections). In reviewing the Radio Links Hollywood website, I do not think that it is a resource that would be uniquely apart of what a film article should already cover. I think it's important to remember that contributing to Wikipedia means not soliciting any one website (which is considered linkspamming and usually tied to a conflict of interest)... contributions should be varied and come from sources determined to be reliable. With that said, I attempted a search engine test for independent coverage about Lori Lerner and her website, but I assume that the reason your article got rejected before was that it was not deemed notable. We use notability as a threshold because otherwise, Joe could write about Joe's Movie Blog on Wikipedia with no real limit. Please let me know if my explanation makes sense; you are not the first, nor will you be the last person who is interested in displaying a particular website on Wikipedia. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - April 2009

The WikiProject Horror Newsletter
Volume I, no. 3 / April 2009
Previous issue

The Coordinator nomination has been extended!
Please go to the nomination page now to add yourself to the election for a coordinator position.
Voting will begin on May 1st.
The current Collaboration of the Month (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) has been extended by a month!
The next collaboration will be selected on April 30th, 2009.
Please place suggestions for the next collaboration here and/or vote on current suggestions.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Coraline runtime dispute

Hey, when you get a chance, can you weigh in over here? I got into a bit of a tiff with another editor, going back and forth with various references, and I'm trying to take a step back... Thanks. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Election

Congratulations on assuming leadership of WP:FILM. I'm pleased to say you had my support! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'm pleased to have yours! :) Feel free to check in at WT:FILMC anytime or to see my jumbled thoughts at my coordinator sandbox. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture merge discussion

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yo

I was wondering if adding the table in cast section is alright?. I don't remember this but i have seen it somewhere that adding tables is wrong.--SkyWalker (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nowadays, we discourage tables for "Cast" sections because it's easier to go with a simple list. With a simple list, new editors don't have to worry about coding, and the bulleted items can be expanded with real-world context. Tables can be used if there is more than two columns of information, such as different sets of voice actors at My Neighbor Totoro#Voice cast. Otherwise, though, I encourage a simple list to display the actors and their roles. Brief descriptions (a fragment or one short sentence per character is ideal) can be added to such sections, too. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I shall come here again once i have more questions. Sayonara --SkyWalker (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Adding task forces to film articles' talk pages

That's pretty much the idea, yes. I imagine tagging in just Category:American films would take care of most articles. PC78 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You would have to make a request over at WP:BOTREQ. I think this sort of thing is pretty common, so I wouldn't anticipate any problems. PC78 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

World Cinema Writer

Seriously, we should file a complaint to block him. How many times is he pointed to WP:NFF. He's not illiterate, he just doesn't care. He recreated The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader although filming doesn't start until July. Alientraveller (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. I left another message about WP:NFF to make the situation abundantly clear for him and others that may need to review the situation later on. Let's see what happens after this message before taking any action. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes for coordinators

I may be out of line here, but if you guys are considering an image for a userbox why not pick something entirely different from the film reel used by the members? Speaking for myself, when I selected the 5 and 6 star ensignias for the milhist coordinators it was due to the signifigance of the five and six star positions in the US military and the honor and respect such positions commanded internationally. Perhaps instead of a modified film reel for a coordinator user box you and your cabinent might consider reaching out to the actual awards given to movies by film bodies and embracing them as a form of coordinator ensignia; such as golden globes for the coordinators and, an academy award for the lead coordinator. Its just something to think about, but it may be more of a hit with your project, and if the ensignia is unique in nature it may encourage others to run for coordinator next time around. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We had discussion about sprucing up the userbox, but I think it fell by the wayside. I'm not skilled enough to come up with a compelling design... I have a feeling we'll come up with something this term. I just decided to take what existed now and run with it. :) I was thinking, though, instead of specific awards, we could have director's chairs or something of the like. They are the ones "behind the scenes" after all, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're serious with that suggestion, there may be some suitable images on Commons. See this test. Steve T • C 10:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That is really neat! I shared your work over at WT:FILMC; let's see if the others bite. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Moon

You did a great job re-editing that entry on the article - thanks for showing me a great alternative way to handle things in an article :) RyanGFilm (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Just a note to let you know how pleased I am to have you continuing as a film project coordinator and to reiterate how much I appreciate your patience and assistance. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) It is my pleasure to help out, and I enjoy having open dialogue with you. Keep up the great work with your contributions! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging collaboration

This discussion may interest you in your official capacity, specifically the discussion that follows these examples. Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) bemoans editors' concentrating on "low-importance" articles at the expense of core subjects, and it's a good point to make; Wikiproject Film's members are adept at making high-quality individual film articles, yet we leave core articles such as Film and Filmmaking to languish, as their improvement would require more attention than one editor is likely able to devote alone. I thought the discussion might be a relevant one for you, as I know you've been keen to encourage more collaboration among WP:FILM's members, and might be able to use aspects of the discussion in any future deliberations on the matter. Steve T • C 11:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! One goal we coordinators will pursue this term is a contest department that work on articles that are classified as core articles. Collaboration would definitely help in tackling core articles, but I think that WikiProject Films still has to progress toward being a more collaborative community. I think what would help are editors with academic backgrounds related to film. I have seen some projects where students of some type of class collaborate to improve an article. Maybe a similar approach could be explored here... find a film studies professor who asks the class to work together on improving Film and similar articles. :) Perhaps that's too apple-pie-in-the-sky (for now), but I will keep this discussion in mind. Almost makes me feel guilty for enjoying the "limited scopes" of individual film articles! (Then again, the most popular film article last weekend was probably Fast & Furious (2009 film).) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the flip side, isn't it? Fowler&fowler seems keen to direct attention towards more traditionally-encyclopaedic editing, to somehow enhance Wikipedia's reputation as a serious reference work, but statistics show the film articles that get the most page hits are those of individual films. I'd be very surprised to discover, for example, that The Dark Knight (film) wasn't the most viewed film-related article of 2008. Which perhaps makes this fussing over supposed "core" articles irrelevant; the articles that editors want to spend the most time working on are those that our readers want to look at. Steve T • C 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
...or they want to work on topics of personal interest. :) I think that it would be beneficial to Wikipedia to have its core articles at Featured Article quality, but there are so many factors to help that take place. Such a drive needs the right people, the right resources, the right approach to collaboration (so there is no faltering or crossed lines of communication), and the right timeframe. Like you said in the discussion, people have their lives. Lives don't overlap easily. I think it may take an advanced WikiProject and its task forces to target all these factors and draw them together. Such an approach is on a timeline of years, unfortunately. Such collaboration would have to be a controlled project where editors can come and go, but there is a key agenda to follow, while details can be fine-tuned. A little too forward-thinking for me at this point. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Noticed this. Haven't watched it myself, but did you see the Under the Hood "documentary" yet? It really nailed the tone of the book in a way that the film didn't; that grounding in reality and the fact that these "superheroes" are very human and not a little pathetic. Half made me wish the makers of that had been given a shot at the film (which I enjoyed a lot, but perhaps despite Snyder rather than because of him). Steve T • C 17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I watched both, and I liked the documentary a lot. It was great exposition for the Watchmen film universe. I was not as crazy about Tales of the Black Freighter, mostly because of the artwork. The lines were written, but it was not a very nice-looking piece of work. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Film

Thanks for the information. Yes, absolutely, I would like to be included in WikiProject Film. LA Movie Buff (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Titans

My face is looking increasingly Decepticonish these days with WP:NFF violators everywhere and people using piracy. Mind undoing the addition of Patrick Stewart to X-Men (film series) (just check the history) since I've reached three reverts? Alientraveller (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Krueger drives a Harley Davidson

So, what are your thoughts on Jackie Earle playing Freddy Krueger in the Nightmare remake?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any of the Nightmare films... ... ... blasphemy, I know. Maybe I should get around to seeing at least the first one. Knowing Krueger's face in popular culture, seems like Haley would provide an equally creepy facial structure to work with. Can't comment on behaviorism, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I you were to watch any, I would suggest the first one, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, and Wes Craven's New Nightmare. They're the best in the series, they are not as comical in tone, and probably are a better representation of Krueger the character as a whole. I think Haley provides a face that could be very similar to Robert Englund's, which should please a lot of fans on the aesthetic basis. Haley also a good actor, so it bodes well that he should hopefully (fingers crossed) be able to handle such material. I look at it like this, he just did Rorschach, who is a pretty conflicted and complex character (from what I read...still haven't seen the movie unfortunately), which should lend itself to the Krueger portrayal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Duly noted. I added them to my Netflix queue. I can attest that Haley performed admirably in Watchmen. I'm sure he'll do a good turn. I just checked about the remake, though... Samuel Bayer as the director? Who the hell? :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea. Apparently he directed the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" video for Nirvana...and that's typically what he's cited for. I'm not surprised that they went with a music video director. Marcus Nispel was a commercial and music video director before they brought him on for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (and later the Friday the 13th remake). I think that's Bay's thing, trying to lend out a hand to those would-be film directors who are stuck in the music video world. Plus, they also tend to follow this "shoot really fast" style. Apparently the people that directed The Hitcher (2007 film) and The Horsemen (2009 film) are also music video directors. I don't know who Andrew Douglas is (for the Amityville remake) as he has no page, and The Unborn (2009 film) was directed by David Goyer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice about presentation format

Hi Erik,

I think it would be good to have the editors write in such a way that the end of a movie is not exposed in the first few lines. In any forum, on IMDB or elsewhere, it would be considered very bad form to do so without any warning. In the "Wake of the Red Witch", the editor(s) say in the first paragraph that the main character will die. I would now think twice about consulting any movie page beforehand.

Thanks for all your work!

Philippe 114.158.62.71 (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I looked at Wake of the Red Witch and agree that the plot detail should not be in the lead section. Being one of "only nine" films for that to happen is pretty silly. I cited WP:SPOILER for needing encyclopedic purpose in sharing such a detail, so I think that covering that detail and other details in the "Plot" section is sufficient for giving readers context. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott Pilgrim edits

Hi Erik,

If you remove detail from a page in order to redirect to the film adaptation's page, please add (appropriately) the material you've removed to the new page. For example, you removed cast listings as well as production information and none of that has appeared on the film adaptation page. Additionally, it is helpful to include a sentence or so in the lead for the comic page stating that a film adaptation is in production and possibly notable actors/directors/staff contributing to the effort, as it lends further notability to the original topic. Thanks for the work! Luminum (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated. :) Since I am not familiar with the source material, do you know if the premise is from the first part of the comic book series but uses the title of one of the later parts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for incorporating it. I don't know much about the movie plot except that it appears to take the title from a later book but contain the overall plot of the series, which is Scott Pilgrim's task to defeat his new American girlfriend Ramona Flowers' "Seven Evil Ex-es" in order to date her peacefully. What is interesting is that the final issue hasn't been published yet (and the latest issue was published a few months ago) so how the film plans to resolve this in their writing/shooting is unclear.Luminum (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Bryan Singer GT

Eh, might be considered cherry picking, but I could see an argument for only having his featured films. I'd highly recommend that when you rewrite Singer's article, the difference in importance between the two is clearly outlined when discussing Singer's career. In any case, I would direct this question to WT:FTQ, where you can get feedback from the FTC regulars. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

re Transcluding GA reviews

I see you already did it, no objections. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As a personal preference I don't transclude, but again I have no objections if others do that. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as a big thing either. But this is three posts in a row now, so obviously it is a "big thing" to you... :P Cirt (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Refactor, my apologies for the tone, was only meant in a light manner but been under the weather a tad recently :( Cirt (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay no worries. Thanks again for all the great work you do on the project on films. Cirt (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge length

Hi mate, in case you're wondering I believe 5 days is an acceptable length of time for a merge discussion run (re; Ferris Bueller). Ryan4314 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think we have enough responses since it started on April 5. Might help to ask an independent editor to determine the consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yea WP:Merge says you can get an uninvolved admin to close it via a request at the noticeboard. Mind, I think the term "controversy" is for long drawn issues where there have been accusations of foul play etc, not just when opposition or support is ferocious. Still recommend asking an uinvolved admin tho. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

hi

I think I'm going to write a plot summary for The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell. The Wurdulak (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi... i just changed "wurdalak" to "wurdulak" in the Black Sabbath film article. I was so sure it was "The Wurdulak" but I may have been wrong. How can I resolve this? If I'm wrong then can I change my account to The Wurdalak? The Wurdulak (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I'm wrong.. Video watchdog has an explanation on page 51... it says the title card says "The Wurdulak" but somewhere else it says "The Wardalak". I can't read this issue. Also, Google has more hits for Wurdulak but Google Books has more hits for Wurdalak. The Wurdulak (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. That was just a bare bones plot synopsis. There's a lot about this movie that I can use. Billy Mitchell is actually a very controversial figure in US history. The Wurdalak (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Preliminary agenda

What you have looks fine. Any thoughts I have on specific objectives are probably best saved for WT:FILMC. Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the other reports I sent PC78 (on talk page)? I'm not a WP:FILMS person, but I can do reports (hence why I stuck my oar in). Anyhow, no problem. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that would be fine. As a general rule, pretty much any combination of categories / templates / images is possible. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Besides not clearly stating the thrust of the problem, that pesky little request that commenters vote to keep the section or get rid of it was the main thrust of my concern. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Hey again. I was wondering what are the sites that are considered reliable to add it in film soundtrack. It is pretty hard to find a decent sources for film soundtracks. Can you help me with this. I found out that majority of Wikipedians does not like film soundtracks. Either they want the article to be deleted for notability or they want it to be redirected to the main article. In one case Dragonball Evolution had a separate soundtrack after that the article was redirected to the main article for notability issues and then i later added the tracklist to the main article and it was removed by same user. Though i don't understand that user mentality. Why can't the soundtrack either have a separate article or remain in the main article. The main issue iam having is finding the notability. Thanks again. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner! I did not notice your message on my user talk page until today. I'll tell you what I have observed about film soundtracks. Most articles I encounter about them are bare-bones, and they are usually created for two reasons. One is that the soundtrack, being from a notable film, is notable as well, and warrants its own article. Unfortunately, coverage for soundtrack is generally not extensive, nor is there direct interest from most editors. (Exceptions are soundtracks that are critically acclaimed and/or have won awards.) The other reason why soundtrack articles are created is that editors fork the content from the article about the film. I think this is usually done with the logic of the first reason and to clean up the film article for further development in other sections. This is probably not the wisest approach, and I have been guilty of it on a couple of occasions. When it comes to track listings, I have a personal preference. I consider track listings to be indiscriminate information if all the music was composed by one person or one group and do not have interesting track titles (usually being related to film scenes). I'll share an example. Fight Club (soundtrack) used to be an article, but I wrote Fight Club (film)#Musical score and redirected there. It identifies the group that performed music for the film, and the track listing is too indiscriminate to list. However, I think track listings are useful for navigational purposes in the case of when there are multiple musical artists and songs that are popular outside the film. A good example is Tropic Thunder#Soundtrack. It gives readers access to read more about each artist and song, and the track listing is the best way to display that. Unfortunately, MOS:FILM is not clear about this, having only one sentence, so guidelines for a section like that should be proposed at some point. I hope my answer helps you; I think that is why the listing is not so well-received, even if the soundtrack itself has notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Film Scores situation

I've lurked a bit and have made minor contributions to Wikipedia, but when I recently tried to use the site for some research in creating a small history of film scores, I was appalled to find the terrible shape of that section. At first there seemed to be an effort to work on it, but I also discovered signs that stated the discussions were historical archives. This was very confusing.

Eventually I found a link to the WikiProject Films pages, and it appeared that the effort to fix the scoring section was adopted by your project, but the project pages do not seem to contain any information about the scoring articles.

Having been a collector for 30+ years and having written on the subject, I'd like to be involved with any effort to fix the scoring pages. Can you help guide me in the right direction?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADWNSW (talk • contribs) 05:12, April 13, 2009

Erik, thanks for the reply, and thanks for the offer.
You're right I was referring to film score. My first concern about working on this section is that when I first looked at the main article, I reviewed the page pertaining to the so-called Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music effort. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned something archived for historical purposes. I do have the wiki knowledge you asked about, and there are definitely a number of tasks or "positions" I could fulfill in the effort, but that past page already has a list of volunteers. I don't want to step on any toes if a group of people are already doing work or feel they're already involved to any extent. I assume from your statement to me that no one has contacted you about this, certainly since you were named coordinator.
If this is the case, I would be willing to get the ball rolling on the scoring article(s). Even were I not to be chief on that particular part of the WikiProject Films, I certainly agree to accepting your invitation. I'll wait on your next opinion before officially joining.--ADWNSW (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on the User Page. Since I'm wading in Wiki beyond my knees, I thought it a good idea to get that page populated at last. I'll take a look at the page you suggested and see if it give me any thoughts. It may take me a little while to do it, however, because of prior commitments (and the same with the film scores work), but soon enough. --ADWNSW (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Hi User:Erik,
Regarding what you said, I was wondering if you could give me step-by-step directions for the citenews tags.
I pretty much could copy and paste, and fill in the blanks, but when it comes to the ref names, which I might of duplicated twice with different names, e.g. NYTimes or TVFamily or NYTimes2, it gets confusing, what I named what, and then its all over the article, and then I have to remember what came from where.
Thanx!
ATC . Talk 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be happy to provide directions! Let's work with this article.
  1. First, when you use the {{cite news}} template, it will look like this: {{cite news | last=Broder | first=John M. | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html | title=E.P.A. Clears the Way for Regulation of Warming Gases | work=[[The New York Times]] | date=April 17, 2009 | accessdate=April 17, 2009 }}
  2. My preferred method of keeping track of references is to use a keyword from the title of the article, rather than the work itself. For example, a keyword we can use is "gases", so for referencing the article multiple times, we would have one reference be written like this: <ref name="gases">{{cite news | last=Broder | first=John M. | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html | title=E.P.A. Clears the Way for Regulation of Warming Gases | work=[[The New York Times]] | date=April 17, 2009 | accessdate=April 17, 2009 }}</ref>
  3. My suggestion is to have the template at the very first time the article is referenced in the article. Succeeding references to the same articles should use this: <ref name="gases" /> With multiple references of the same article, you will see letters in alphabetic order. As I recommend using the template in the first instance, all you have to do is click "a" at the article's listing in the "References" section to find where in the article the full template is.
Please let me know if this helps! —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the help. I'm wondering if users are allowed to re-nominate an article if it has been through major improvements since the last time it was nominated, because I want to nominate The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie.
Thanx again!
ATC . Talk 04:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the Good Article instruction pages, and I think it is acceptable to re-nominate it. You could also take the route of a peer review, too. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Want to take a shot?

Well, do ya, punk? Lol.
Seriously, I thought I would extend an invitation to help cut down the plot section of an article I threw together over the past two days, Born to Run (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles). It's over by about 200 words and, as I wrote it, i think I'mtoo close to do some cutting. It's going to be mighty hard to do so while retaining the elements of the very dense plotline. Bignole, Alientraveller, please consider this inviation extended to you as well. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help later today... I'm touch-and-go at the moment. (Pancakes are being made at present!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd help, but I haven't seen any of season two...so I'd rather not spoil it for myself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's okay, I was able to knock it down to 782 words, which is more acceptable. Once you are caught up or whatnot, please feel free to drop by either there or another one I've created within the past week, '76. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Films

Hey, thanks! I'm glad I thought of it - been working on film articles for a while and hadn't joined until now. -- A talk/contribs 15:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Lantern (movie)

Thanks for your help with this. I am just getting used to dealing with all the wiki tags. TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I am familiar with taking care of future film articles -- creating, merging, deleting, expanding and so forth. If you have any questions about Wikipedia or film articles, feel free to ask! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Rescuers page

Hey there, Erik. I've been working on cleaning up The Rescuers film page, following the task list you put together. I believe everything on the list is completed. See what you think... and if there's anything else I can do to help, let me know! Cactusjump (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Erik, Can we protect this page please? An unregistered user is undoing some extensive work I've made on this page, making everything as it used to be. I've suggested they view our discussion and task list first, but they don't seem to want to. Cactusjump (talk)
I wanted to post here for various reasons, but what could I do to not mess up on my changes? And I think this page will need protection in about four days once I can edit semied pages, does it get a lot of vandalism? TheRescuers (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I replied to you on your talk page. Cactusjump (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Sayerslle here, thanks for inviting me to join wiki project films. I have a question about notability please, - I created a page on one of Julien Duviviers films 'Marie-Octobre', I just had a go at translating the french wiki article really and it has got tagged for 'notability'. I kind of figure that if a director is notable, then he's notable because of his films , so they must be notable also. I would like for Duvivier, for practically all of his films to have a page of their own so that a visitor to the Duvivier page could click on the film titles and quickly discover the cast, themes , and critical reaction to each of his films. I should like this to be true for each of the films of two of my favourite actresses also, Catherine Mouchet, and Sylvie Testud. Again, if they are notable actresses, then most of their films should be notable too. Is my logic flawed? will I be always tagged for 'not notable' if I create pages for Duvivier, Mouchet, Testud films. And how long do I have to leave it tagged, before I can assume , since the article has not been deleted, it has passed the notability test. Sorry about all these questions.Thanks Sayerslle (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at Marie-Octobre and performed a search engine test to gauge quickly the film's notability. It appears notable per Wikipedia's standards, though there may be better coverage in French-language resources (which I did not search). The reason it was tagged is because you do not use any references in the article, so we do not know if the film has been covered by secondary sources, such as in terms of themes or critical reaction. To answer your question, the notability of a director does not quite equate the notability of all his films. For some films, there may not be anything to say about a film other than it exists, if there is no secondary coverage about it. So there would not be much of an article as a result. What I encourage you to do is use references to add to the article the film's themes and/or critical reaction and citing these references in the article. If you need help with referencing, let me know, and I will be glad to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Common Sense Media

Regarding what we discussed about "Reception";
Common Sense Media has a review on The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie.
I was wondering if you could explain to me about reception and help me add it.
Thanx!
ATC . Talk 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

The Guidance Barnstar
For your continued, invaluable advice throughout the development of Changeling (film), which helped the article become as good as it could be. Steve T • C 08:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It was my pleasure to help, and congratulations on making Changeling a Featured Article! If you ever want to collaborate on another article, especially that of an older film, let me know and I will be happy to help with that as well. I'm glad that the closing sequence image was not problematic after all! :P (I actually added it as an example to follow in our guidelines; it is battle-hardened, after all.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. In fairness to the original opposing reviewer, I think I now accept that the original rationale was weakly-written; it needed spelling out exactly how the image was useful, rather than leaving it implied. If I take another film article to FA, it will almost certainly be an older, more influential/important one (though perhaps with not as many academic sources to sift through as Fight Club!) In a way it seems almost a shame to have spent so much time on this, as the film will be regarded as a marginal one in Eastwood's overall career, and long-term interest in our article will likely wane. On the other hand, it helped refine my editing skills, especially when it came to copyediting my own work; it might have been a quick drop-in, but Tony's one-line "The writing is good" comment was especially pleasing—from him, I consider that high praise indeed :) Steve T • C 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I figured that you would see Tony's input that way! :) Whatever film article you pursue, feel free to touch base for resources. (If you want resources through my university, best do it soon... will graduate in two weeks but I think I have access through the summer.) Need to work on seeing what resources will be available where I move to by fall. Am thinking about subscribing to Cinefex, Creative Screenwriting, Filmmaker... depending on my budget, of course. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about the other two, but Creative Screenwriting is a goldmine of information. I managed to track down a copy at a bookshop 35 miles away for the Changeling article, and its two-page spread formed the basis of much of the "Writing" section. Even its much shorter piece on Blindness provided enough information to significantly bolster that article's "Development" and "Writing" sections. Just one issue of the magazine can provide the same level of information for about a dozen or so other film articles. Steve T • C 09:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

you can help!

Yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but the country is really all I need.) You can just shoot me an email, or reply here, or via my talk. It's for a project I have to do involving Wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hell

Look 'ere Mr. Erik. If you want to go to hell take the highway man. Being dragged is gonna hurt. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the point. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Future films template

Just wondering what your current thinking is on this, since the discussion at WT:FILM kinda trailed off. To be honest I don't think that list articles need tagging at all, as any information about upcoming films will be pretty minimal. I'd be happy to restrict {{future film}} to actual articles about upcoming films. PC78 (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this discussion! I was thinking about concluding this, too. We can get rid of {{Future films list}}. For {{Future film}}, are we in agreement to clarify the template's usage for future film articles and not sections of other articles detailing future films? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure. :) PC78 (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Friday

Well, it is true 2012 is released on a friday 13th. Don't see why it can't be added by coincidance Goku1st (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Watchmensch image

I thought FU images were to be used a minimum of once, as per NFC#7. That's why I recycled the image in Watchmen. Additionally, it exemplifies that Watchmensch is indeed a parody, also fulfilling NFC#8. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My impression was that it was not standard to replicate cover images so frequently. For example, I don't think discography articles display album covers for each album outlined since the album article has the cover image already. For Watchmensch, the cover is "cover art" that is appropriate as identification in the context of critical commentary about the topic. What exists at Watchmen is just a summary form of the critical commentary at the main article, so I don't think that the identification goes outside the main article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Would a more appropriate use be to upload a side-by-side comparison of the two (as I did for 300)? That would seem to better illustrate the satirization, I guess. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
From what I can tell, I don't know if the comparison is prominent enough to take place. Examining the existing commentary, there does not seem to be an explicit comparison of the covers. In the case of 300, the illustration helped because the bluescreen and the actual result were both being discussed. I think this case is like Valkyrie in its "Marketing" section -- the design of its poster is compared to two previous films, and the links are there for readers to visit and compare poster images. This is a lighter instance where I don't think that the parodied cover would go amiss to readers, so we do not need to worry about dealing with WP:NFCC any more than having the covers at their individual articles. If you still disagree, perhaps start discussion at Talk:Watchmen? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily disagreeing; I am simply a little confused about NFC's application. I mean, barring your explanation, there's nothing about the image's placement that would run afoul of NFCC, right? I respect your thoughts about FU replication, but I've come across in the past someone using #7 to defend multiple uses of the same FU image. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
#7 definitely does not permit multiple uses. It just means that a non-free image has to be somewhere in the article space to be acceptably uploaded; user space and WikiProject space don't count. From my understanding of non-free images, there needs to be a specific justification for each time it appears in a different article. Looking at what you drafted, you wrote the purpose as, "Illustration of the cover of the comic book to demonstrate the depth of the parody." That goes a bit deeper than identification in the context of critical commentary (for the main article), yet nothing at Watchmen#Parody explicitly makes an observation about the cover. A better justification would be if there was a description saying something like, "The bloody smear is satirically replaced with a party string." Yet I am not sure that such a connection is strong enough to warrant its repeated presence outside the main article. This is a Featured Article, and Steve had to work pretty hard to clarify rationale for Changeling (film)#Closing sequence. I think it's best treated as only a "cover art" image at its main article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Not for nothing, but the parody of the blood trail in Watchmensch is not a party string but a payot; the story is about a group of Jewish lawyers/superheroes who investigate the murder of one of their own. Now, it would appear to me the thing to do would be to get some input on the artwork, so as to use it. I see that I cannot include it at Watchmen as there is not sufficient citable connection to include it - it would be synthesis to make an interpretive or evaluative comparison. Things have been busy at work (as you can imagine), so I haven't been able to dig up as much, but there appears to be quite some buzz about it. Its an outright attack very thinly disguised as parody. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. :) Erwin Springer [talk] 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 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) 07:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Christian_films_task_force#Article_tagging

Hey Erik,

I've added a comment at the above discussion, would you mind commenting?

Regards,

BG7even 11:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rescuers page: Protection?

Hey Erik, With all the work we've done in collaboration of fixing The Rescuers film page, I was wondering if we could protect it? It's been vandalized in the past, and recent changes have been superfluous. See what you think... Cactusjump (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[jumping in]
Per the protection policy, "preemptive full protection of articles is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia," and "semi-protection is used for articles, such as Barack Obama, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism."
That's a good movie, by the way. I fondly recall my mother bringing me to see it when I was eight years old. —David Levy 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps in the future it can be reevaluated based on its edit history. I also love the movie and enjoy watching it as an adult even more. :) Cactusjump (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik/Archive_17&oldid=1146435260"