User talk:Gothicfilm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Gothicfilm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --IllaZilla (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Monkey Planet[edit]

Thanks for finding and adding those refs! Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:George Kenner - artist at Frith Hill PoW Camp 1915-picnik crop contrast.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:George Kenner - artist at Frith Hill PoW Camp 1915-picnik crop contrast.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Rise of the Planet of the Apes[edit]

I'm trying desperately to remember, but I could swear Armando refers to Milo as "Caesar" at the very end of Escape, as the chimp starts uttering "ma ma, ma ma." I was certain, but then I may be recollecting a comic book version of the film. Please correct me if I'm incorrect. –TashTish (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In the third film Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Armando didn't refer to him by name in the last scene - he just quietly said "Intelligent creature... But so were your mother and father." Then Armando walks away - the camera moves in on Milo, who starts making some vocal sounds: "Mama... Mama..." My assumption is Armando first heard him talk at some later point. At any rate, the name "Caesar" is not heard until the fourth film, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

George Kenner/German ed.[edit]

Hi Gothicfilm, I have made some alterations in your german article in regard of sentence structure and proper German. I hope I didn't chance too much of the contents of what you where trying to say. Let me know if you have the feeling I did too much. Best wishes.--Trannyl (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help...! - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the wrong instructions[edit]

HelloGothicfilm. I didn't want to clutter up the conversation on the infobox page. I apologize if I gave you the wrong instructions. I know that the preferences work differently for different browsers but I don't know all the ins and outs of those differences. You may not be able to get it to work for you so again my apologies. On another note I appreciate your username as it ties into the Gothic Theater [1] in which I have spent many enjoyable hours over the years. First as a movie theater when I was young (I saw Ben (film) there when I was very young) and then as a venue for live music (The Squirrel Nut Zippers were great there.) Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think there was a way to set a non-collapsing navbox preference. It doesn't appear to be a browser issue. I'm glad the Gothic Theater is still going, though I have no connection to it, never having lived in Colorado...! - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Space Needle = Googie architecture?? source please[edit]

I've got a problem with Googie architecture. Folks like to place any example of unusual or fantastic architecture into this style without any sources. That's clearly original research. Please see my note at the bottom of the Googie talk page. So please include a source if you want to say that the Space Needle is googie. If not I'll revert back to the absence of a statement tomorrow. Thanks,

Smallbones (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly a fan of the term Googie architecture, but is does exist and its article uses the Space Needle image as its prime example. A small mention of this has been there on the Space Needle page for at least four years without any problem until you challenged and deleted it. I simply restored it. I don't have time to go hunting for a ref for something that has been there for so long. As I said, you shouldn't need a ref cluttering an image description when the link Googie architecture explains all. If there was really a problem with WP:Original Research others would have challenged it over the last four years. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No source, challenged (for about a month now), removed, reverted, asked politely for a source, no source given ==> I should remove it again. Feel free to have any admin tell me if I'm doing anything wrong here. Smallbones (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

PA4: The Director's Cut[edit]

"Paranormal Activity 4: The Director's Cut " has been acquired by Paramount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.6.163 (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no such film. This guy likes to create his own YouTube and Facebook pages, title them after well known films and then announce them on WP. When someone reverts his "contributions", he usually doesn't hesitate to revert it back. Check on his history here: Special:Contributions/72.178.6.163 -- Gothicfilm (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Alien running time[edit]

Just because a source is not online does not mean it "cannot be verified". All of the relevant publication info is included in the citation, so if you wish to track down the book to verify the info, feel free. Print sources are, in most cases, superior to online sources due to the intangible and ever-changing nature of the internet. Challenging a source is one thing; claiming that cited information "cannot be verified", simply because the source is print rather than web and you can't be bothered to track it down, is quite another. Per WP:BRD, please take the topic to the article's talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The British Board of Film Classification actually measures the print of the film they are classifying to the nearest foot and frame - reviewers and other "reliable sources" rely on secondary sources. So their data is not as reliable. We don't know how your source got his running time of 119, so therefore it's unreliable in a real sense, even if I could see the book. I doubt he measured a film print. My real objection to what you're doing here is not so much listing a runtime of 119 instead of a rounded up 117 -- no, my real problem is having the first reference in this otherwise very good article say something which is false - namely The cinematic release of the film ran 119 minutes, while later video and DVD versions ran 116 minutes due to the different frame rates between film and video. If McIntee were correct, every DVD would be three minutes shorter than the theatrical release. That's obviously not the case. According to BBFC figures I've checked on several films, including Alien, there's only a difference of around 10 seconds, if that. So rounded up to the nearest minute, for our purposes on WP, theatrical and DVD running times are going to be the same if the film hasn't been re-edited. Alien should be listed at 117 minutes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Saturn 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Done - it now goes to Billy Williams (cinematographer). - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars?![edit]

Thanks! Lately, I have taken to undertake "rescue" missions, and even providing a modicum of references will often suffice to prevent an article from being "chopped and diced". My main interest as you can probably gather from my resume, is aviation history, but I have waded into other areas including classic films, being a sometime documentary filmmaker. Thanks again, call anytime. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

Hitchcock cameo[edit]

how can it be a possible cameo?? either its him or its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.118 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It does appear it is not Hitchcock: Talk:List of Hitchcock cameo appearances#Secret Agent - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your antivandalism work[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you'd cleaned up after a vandal who fooled with Academy Award for Best Film Editing, which is on my watchlist, and with quite a few other pages. Thanks for your work! Easchiff (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been after that guy for weeks. After his spree yesterday I labeled my reverts More made-up credits from this persistent IP hopper so others watching those pages would realize what he's doing. Pending changes protection (See Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2) may be the only way to deal with an IP hopper like him. I see he was back this morning with yet another IP, but others have reverted him, yourself included.
BTW, I've come across your good work on the pages of several film editors -- Kudos to you as well! - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look at the proposed change. This vandal is certainly wasting editor time that could be better spent. Easchiff (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Please be aware that another option is WP:RFPP. If you don't get any satisfaction there sometimes reverting again and again, even if it goes on for weeks, is the only option. If you stay on it they can get tired of their messing around and they will go away - with luck. Now I know that I am chiming in without knowing all of the facts of what is going on so if these suggestions aren't helpful please forgive me for intruding. Best of luck to both of you in dealing with this pest. MarnetteD | Talk 15:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't do a WP:RFPP because this guy tends to strike infrequently, and I've noticed PPs tend to last only a day or two, especially when they're being used against only one user. He'd return after they expired.
I've obviously seen your posts on multiple film pages, and we've had exchanges there. So it's not at all offputting to see you here. No worries about Talk page stalking... In fact that gave me a laugh...
I didn't notice any other WP:FILM people on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 when I checked it out a couple days ago. It does seem like a better option than temporary PP, but it all depends on how it's implemented. There could be some real problems with it, e.g. edit conflicts, but the consensus seems to be building for it with Option 2. I voted for it as well (after initially leaning against), largely because of our IP hopper -- but I reserve the right to change my mind if it doesn't work like it should... I'd be curious as to your thoughts on it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. "Pending changes" never really worked for me - that is as likely due to my being a techno-dinosaur and not understanding all that computers/wikiprogaming can do as to any problems with the way the changes worked. It just didn't save me any time. You are right about PPs usually only lasting a few days. If you get an admin who is understanding they might protect for longer periods of time with repeat vandalism (for instance their are some pages that were vandalized so often by BambiFan101 that they have been under PP status for years) but that is hit or miss. I know how frustrating these long term vandals can be, especially when you want to be doing other editing. We've got one person that loves adding MTV awards for film villains to various articles in spite of the fact that they (actor and/or villain) weren't even nominated. That is one of the ones that I just keep reverting and they seem to have gone away for the last couple weeks. Again best wishes in dealing with this situation and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hitchcock cameo in Topaz[edit]

There is no source for the previous time of 33 minutes. Also, what kind of source do you want? I just watched the film, and the cameo appeared at :27. Jem54 (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Two sources are in External links at the bottom of the page. Empire gives 00:32:27, Filmsite gives 33 minutes. Your own observations unfortunately come under WP:OR, and they're contradicted by what's been accepted and backed-up on the page a long time. You probably saw an edited version of the film. It would be best to respond on the article's Talk page: Talk:List of Hitchcock cameo appearances#Hitchcock cameo in Topaz - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Prequel dispute[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Prequel". Thank you. Barsoomian (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As long as you're online I thought we might have an opportunity to try to get further. (1) I didn't know there were any sources indicating Rise was in a different continuity from the first two movies, I thought the inconsistency with the series started with Escape. (2) But in general are you interested in talking out why this series is different from most any other? Is it the continuity argument only? If so and you have sources for noncontinuity, that advances the discussion. JJB 01:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (3) I also thought the relevant text ("have been primarily described as [sequels] in a vast majority of sources, but have also been regarded as prequels in the broad sense by reliable sources") was an accurate statement of your views about POTA. Comment? JJB 01:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
That was unnecessarily verbose. And readers don't know what "reliable sources" means. It was best the way it was. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is not in continuity with first 1968 film, it makes winking allusions to it. If you haven't read the previous discussion on the Apes sequels and Rise being a reboot, you can do so at WT:FILM Escape from the Planet of the Apes - does going back in time make a sequel a prequel? Note a couple quotes:
Hold on, I thought we were talking about Escape. You're talking about Rise? Rise is a reboot. Have you seen the original films? They tell the whole story of the ape revolt: In Escape Cornelius & Zera travel back in time to the '70s & give birth to Caesar, the first ape who can talk; In Conquest, Caesar leads the apes in a revolt against humanity; In Battle, the apes & humans coexist in a world ravaged by nuclear war, until some radiation-scarred humans attack & Caesar established apes as dominant. Rise contradicts these 3 original films by portraying an entirely different origin story for Caesar, a different story of the ape revolt, and a different means by which humanity is mostly wiped out (a virus as opposed to nuclear war). Rise is, in every sense, a reboot of the franchise. It would be as if I made a Star Wars film depicting a completely different origin for Darth Vader than those portrayed in Episodes I, II, & III. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure Rise is a reboot of the franchise. That's not the question. Rise is also prequel to PotA (1968). Same as your hypothetical SW movie could be a prequel to "New Hope" while contradicting SW I, II, III. "Prequel" is relation between two works, not a statement of how a work fits into a "franchise". A single film or book can have many "prequels", completely contradictory. Why not? See the RfC for more details, I don't want to just repeat this over and over. Barsoomian (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No, that's quite wrong. Rise of the Planet of the Apes isn't a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes, since it contradicts it where details of events before the rise of the apes are concerned. In the original Planet of the Apes, the Icarus is sent out into space in the early 1970s. In Rise, on the other hand, it gets sent out during the events of that film, and it clearly isn't set in the early 1970s. You can't reconcile them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to spend all my time on WP giving the same points on this, on what would now be a fifth page. So I'll paste in my earlier summary of the dispute:
As I explained in the extended conversations at Talk:Prequel/Archive 1#Planet of the Apes series has no prequels and the following Talk:Prequel/Archive 1#RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels and Talk:Prequel/Archive 2#Apes source analysis, I agreed to describing Rise of the Planet of the Apes in the article as a reboot film that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. But I don't believe that's accurate for the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. I have read a great deal about them over the years, including looking back at contemporaneous articles. They were always called sequels, all four of them. Each film has characters moving forward in their own timeline from the previous film, and they discuss what happened in that preceding film. The narrative as well as the characters of those films continue forward in their own story in each one, even as they go back in time. For the three primary Apes characters, the events of the third film occur after the original narrative. Not before.
To again quote Betty Logan: In the case of the 70s sequels, there really isn't that much out there calling them prequels, just the odd source here and there, and for the most part they are usually regarded as sequels, so the question is whether there is enough opinion out there to warrant the claim that there is a significant view they are prequels? I generally think there isn't if I have to call it.
Again, consensus both here and at WT:FILM is firmly against listing any of the original Planet of the Apes series sequels as prequels. They were against including Rise as well, but I compromised and went along with listing it in gray shading because it's a reboot that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. You may be able to find a small number of sources that have called some of the original sequel films prequels, but not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel. Usually when consensus is reached, it's done and we move on. It seems to me this dispute should be over. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt pressured to repeat yourself. I thought POTA didn't name the craft and thus that the winking reference to an Icarus in Rise was maybe-so maybe-not the same craft in-universe. Perhaps something else about the reference to Icarus did intend to be directly contradictory, which you can fill me in about. But on the main point, you seem to be saying the 3 films truly "have been primarily described as [sequels] in a vast majority of sources, but have also been regarded as prequels in the broad sense by reliable sources", which is why I put that in. To move the conversation forward one way or another, since you are not contradicting my reading of your view but only repeating statements that don't answer it directly, it would appear I could conclude my reading is accurate. Or are you saying all the sources advanced here are unreliable? I would hope you're not going there, because that might be an easy one for the RSN (another board!) to bat out of the park on the side of reliability. But I am likely to be signing off for the next few hours. Looking forward to full resolution. JJB 02:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Congratulations, Gothicfilm, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!

Thank you for all the hard work you've put into the film articles in the encyclopedia. Keep it up! :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Maryana...! - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Executive producer[edit]

There's no "OR" involved in it. The Executive Producer outranks the Producer, and if both are credited on a film, the Exec comes first. Don't revert again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your claim because it's a *hierarchy*, and the exec prod is more likely to be responsible for basic decisions about the film, whereas the producer is more likely to be dealing with day-to-day issues is just an assumption you have. It's not universally true at all. Philip D'Antoni was the principal producer on Bullitt and all the films he made, winning the Best Picture Oscar for The French Connection. One would think the fact that the credited exec producer Robert E. Relyea is never mentioned in the article might indicate something to you. An edit based on who you think "is more likely to be responsible" isn't even original research, it's just your assumption.
And prepare to be reverted at Template:Infobox film/doc, where a number of people are against listing exec producers at all. I don't agree with that, as you can see at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 21#Executive Producers. They're not likely to take kindly to your rolling in and re-writng their policy at your whim. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, you appear to be correct, at least according to the AMPAS, where only "Producers" are credited for Best Picture nominated films. I'm off to revert my change to the template, and to remove the Exec Prod from Bullitt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes/Prometheus short film[edit]

Dear Gothicfilm:

Before I would change anything in Prometheus (Zoltan Deme film) article, please let me ask your views about the proposed changes, because you seem an excellent, data-to-data precise editor and know Wikipedia much better than me. The basis of my proposed changes:

(A) This movie is done, completed and finished, and this fact I am able to support with sources. (B) This movie rather is a science fiction horror movie - however, with no sources I am able to support the "horror" nature (I am certainly not an "encyclopedia" knowing everything that has been published until this time). My question is: the fairly supported fourth paragraph of the article that shows that the Inquisition is present in the film by torturing and freezing someone to death, is acceptable as supporting factor or maybe not?

As I would resolve these problems: (A) In subsection Filming locations and circumstances, the proposed sentence is: High tech animation was added in 2011, and the movie was finished in 2012. [Placing source here]. Instead of the recent first sentence of the entire article, the proposed sentence is: Prometheus is a science fiction short film written and directed by Zoltan Deme. (B) If you approve the term "horror" based on the above details, the first sentence of the entire article would be exactly this: Prometheus is a science fiction horror short film written and directed by Zoltan Deme.

Please note me what to do, what is the right way to resolve these problems. Hoping to have your help,

Yours, Achstein2222y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achstein2222y (talkcontribs) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A scene or two of the Inquisition as described does not put Prometheus (Zoltan Deme film) in the horror film genre. If you label it that people would expect horror elements to be the emphasis of the film. You can change "unfinished" to "unreleased" - it is important to put a film's current release status in the lead - people should not be led to believe this film is available now. The bit on his short film Prometheus at the Zoltan Demme Home Page is rather lacking in detail.
How is this a science fiction film? Sounds like it's a take on the Aeschylus play Prometheus Bound, but then your text says it's about the secrets of a 12th century master painter noted as N.W., and Prometheus Crystallus, the nineteen years old young phenomenon in mathematics and astrology who was sentenced to freeze to death by the Inquisition. Another problem is a lot of the article is unclear whether it's relating the film's narrative or background material. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Gothicfilm:
You are right. Thanks for your help. Though more than two horror scenes are in the movie, these scenes still do not put Prometheus (Zoltan Deme film) in the horror film genre, exactly as you said. We rather have not to mislead people by inaccurate or superficial information. Further, to clear up the genre I place page number to that source that shows this is science fiction movie, a journey to an "other world" (actually, this source is the script of the movie in a printed ISBN book). Besides, I also add page number to the source that describes the circumstances of shooting the movie at Lake Balaton, Hungary, Europe. By ISBN anyone can find it, take it hand, read it, and see the relation. Let see the other confusing items. I will also add a source that shows that the movie was finished this winter and indicates that the film is an unreleased and upcoming movie, thus, I will change the word "unfinished" to "unreleased" as you instructed.
As per the other confusing items I will make an addition indicating that few elements of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound are rather present in the movie and also place appropriate reference. Not to confuse the readers of the article and keep them in clear track, I will separate the ancient and the modern sources of the movie using two subsections instead of the recent one.
I hope that the article will be much better, however, please tell me if you are against any of these changes. Thanks for all your help!
Yours, Achstein2222y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achstein2222y (talkcontribs) 19:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gothicfilm. You have new messages at Callanecc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Callanecc (talkcontribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Birds[edit]

Thanks for explaining your reasons for removal. Edit summaries are a great thing. As Hunter mentions this in both Me and Hitch and the DVD documentary, this idea will reinserted into the article, with your suggested clarifications. Upon its reinsertion, you are, or course, welcome to help smooth the prose (whilst avoiding OR). The JPStalk to me 11:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good. The appearance of bias, whether intended or not, needs to be avoided as well. Hunter's book should have useful accounts of their creative process. If at some point you want to start a discussion on the film's Talk page, I'll be glad to respond. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg's first feature film[edit]

Duel is also credited as his first feature film. Granted it premiered on television first before being released theatrically. He has two feature film debuts listed in the category at the moment. QuasyBoy (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a little ambiguous, but calling Duel Spielberg's feature film directing debut is clearly misleading. It was made and initially released as an ABC-TV movie. Later the powers-that-be gave it a theatrical release in Europe. But that was not the original intent. The WP article even uses the Television film infobox template.
Spielberg's 1971 The Name of the Game NBC-TV series episode L.A. 2017 was 76 minutes long, so we cannot say Duel was his feature-length directing debut either.
The Sugarland Express was considered to be his feature debut at the time of its release. It was his first unqualified feature film. I've taken this to the Duel Talk page and edited accordingly. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The Name of the Game episode wouldn't even count in this case, because its exactly that, a television episode, not a film. Also, I'm not objecting to you not listing Duel as Spielberg's directorial debut film, I just wanted the discrepancy to resolved, that is all. QuasyBoy (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree it should be resolved, and I took it to the Duel page. So until someone disputes it, it's resolved. And L.A. 2017 is as "feature length" as Duel - at least its first released version. That was the only point. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (novel)[edit]

Hello, Gothicfilm. Please keep an eye on Planet of the Apes (novel); the IPs aren't giving up. I have requested semi-protection of the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be there. Thanks for your efforts in protecting the Apes pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Incidentally, I'm not sure whether there is one person at work at Planet of the Apes (novel) and Battle for the Planet of the Apes editing from a dynamic IP address or from several different static IP addresses (maybe different computers), or whether there are two or more different people with different IP addresses. This is relevant for 3RR considerations, among other things. Any thoughts? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I have requested semi-protection of both articles. After my 3RR warning it appears the first IP brought in a friend who has now used at least eight different IP addresses from the same area at Planet of the Apes (novel) and Battle for the Planet of the Apes. This kind of disruption needs to be stopped, but blocking the IPs won't work -- the pages need protection. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like both of the IPs are back. The article may need to be protected again; it would probably be better for someone other than me to request it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. We now have a month's semi-protection at Battle for the Planet of the Apes. This was necessary just hours after the previous two-week semi-protection expired. The IP hoppers were both using new anon addresses - the 2nd his ninth and tenth. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD project[edit]

Hi Gothic, I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer given that you seem to come up against more than your fair share of POV pushers. The essence of it is a peer review system in relation to challenged unilateral edits. If you are not interested then no worries, I'm just seeing if there is any interest/suggestions at this stage before going to the bother of formalizing a proprosal. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've drafted out the proposal at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer#"Request for stable state" project proposal. Hopefully I've addressed any concerns people had, and this is the version that will go before the Wikiproject proposal committee. It's been streamlined a bit to focus on operation and the name has been changed, but other than that it's doing the same job. Anyway, this is a message I'm dropping on everyone's page so they can check it out and make sure they are ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The formal proposal is up and running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state. If you are still interested in supporting it you will need to add your name at the official proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Argo (2012 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University[edit]

October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!
Womanpower logo.svg
Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us!

Sign up here - see you there! 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather[edit]

I invite you to take part in this discussion of an improvement to the plot I am trying to put forward. Thanks --JTBX (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bzuk! And the same to you! - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Girl[edit]

Oops, thanks for fixing this. Not quite sure why I added Anthony Perkins instead of the correct actor. Good job you spotted that one. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Mistakes happen... - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Classic Movie Hub links[edit]

Your several reversions of Classic Movie Hub links brings me to invite your comment at the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Classic Movie Hub links: spam or valuable addition?. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock infobox photo[edit]

If you'd like to resize the studio image - even though we're not even sure it's legal to use on WP - fine. But for you to attempt to delete entirely a photo that was expressly donated to WP per the OTRS ticket, makes no sense. Why would you even want to? Resizing the studio image is reasonable. Removing a specifically donated image is not. Kindly edit collaboratively. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:44AF:D6AC:77D1:E320 (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You have broken WP:3RR by putting in the same edit three times in less than an hour, despite being reverted by two editors. The previous image is better for the infobox. You can place yours lower. This discussion belongs on the article's Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Suggest you review WP:3RR. I did not revert more than 3 times. And whether the previous image is "better" is your opinion. What is not opinion however, is that the image may not even be legal for use. Suggest you review the permission. Hitchcock is not a "film actor", nor do we have a date/year of the image, so it may not be in the public domain. While, we do know the image I restored has an OTRS ticket, so there is no question as to whether we can use it. If you'd like to continue this discussion on the article's talk page, that's fine. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:44AF:D6AC:77D1:E320 (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You've now been reverted by three different editors and given a WP:Edit warring warning. Cont'd at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock#Infobox photo - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Have requested a third opinion on this matter so hopefully someone can clarify the situation. The discussion is at Talk:The Girl (2012 HBO film)#Third opinion. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Line producer[edit]

Hello, thanxalot for looking into the updated version of Film director. Please also check the article Line producer. I rewrote that one too. Dankeschön. NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 22:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. You have looked into this article too. I appreciate that. Even so, I have some mixed emotions in regards to the details you have added. I rewrote this article in the first place because I find tags ugly. Everything I wrote holds water in the sense that it is totally backed up by the new references. You added some information which could very well inspire somebody to be suspicious about "original research" or something. (There is a tag for that too.) However, I also just rewrote Executive producer. Feel invited to have a look at it, please. Merci beaucoup NordhornerII (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sacred Scrolls link.[edit]

Thanks for spearheading this effort. I can't believe that two people who never contributed to a page think they had the right to delete a long standing link. However, Nikkimaria also deleted the link from this page too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planet_of_the_Apes_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=541442076 Can it be restored now or does the same process have to happen again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfThornhill (talkcontribs) 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with the rules of WP can be frustrating, especially when people who don't care about the article's subject arrive on a page just to remove things they have a pet peeve against, like certain types of external links. I'm not happy about the amount of time it took, but in the long run patience won out and WP:Consensus agreed the link was useful. In the case you point to above, La Planète des Singes was being used as a reference, not an EL. However, I agree it is useful for that page as well. Now that it's been cleared for Planet of the Apes (novel), I believe it's justified at Planet of the Apes (franchise) for the same reasons, and will add it as an EL. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, they are at it again and have deleted the links from both pages claiming that no WP:Consensus was reached. My guess is their definition of WP:Consensus is that they have to agree to it. Let me know what next steps are and what I can do to help. SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Stop adding Abridged Scripts for Movies[edit]

This is in response to the rude comment that you left on my Talk page.

Yes, Abridged Scripts are satirical, but that does not mean that they are not useful resources for readers of Wikipedia, since they summarize the plots of movies. Also, satire is a form of criticism, so an Abridged Script functions as a kind of review of a film as well.

Can you point me to anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that says that because Wikipedia is "encyclopedic", everything it links to must be encyclopedic? I don't think so, because that doesn't make any sense (very few books are encyclopedic; neither are newspaper articles). Is there anything in the guidelines that says satire must not be linked to?

That Abridged Scripts should not be linked to in articles about films is your own personal point of view. Unless you can explain how an article about a film is harmed by adding a link to the corresponding Abridged Script, I ask that you stop undoing my edits. If you want to remove links to abridged scripts, you should obtain consensus.

If Abridged Scripts should not be linked to, then the Editing Room template is inappropriate. If you believe that to be the case, you should go to Templates for discussion and nominate this template for deletion. Until you get consensus to do so, you should stop undoing my edits. – Herzen (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thing: why did you remove my link to Metacritic, which used the appropriate template, and add a link to it that does not use the template, in this edit? – Herzen (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it was all one edit, obviously, and you had hit many pages. Satirical websites like The Editing Room are not to be added as external links. See WP:ELNO. Simply pointing this out is not rude. You can respond on your own page, by the way. And I expect your new template will be deleted in short order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I started a thread - you can join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Satirical website The Editing Room - Abridged Scripts for Movies. So far no one there is for adding your link, but they are for deleting your template. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For your enjoyment[edit]

Hello G. Thanks for your vigilance regarding the EL mentioned above. If, at some date in the far future, it ever did meet WikiP's guidelines for EL's then I think we would have to add this one [2] to various film articles as well :-) I hope that some of them bring a smile to your day. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's about the size of it. All they need is to actually put those concepts in screenplay format. Thanks. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Lets see would a 30 second film have a one or two page script :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Tippi Hedren[edit]

Hi Ghoticfilm. May I ask you what was wrong with my introduction ? Of course, it wasn't finished yet. I would be happy if you tell me how to do it. Thank you. Fay169 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It was largely better as it was. And you were putting a controversial claim in the lead as if it were a fact. That claim is covered in the article. Putting it in the lead gives it WP:UNDUE weight. Gothicfilm (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup proposal[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wikinic[edit]

Wiknic logo.svg Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park LA Wiknic 2011 Group Photo.jpg
You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! howcheng {chat} 01:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

// 2013 // Playwright[edit]

My edit was intended to improve the etymology section of the term Playwright which not only felt like too much prose and bloated, but it was also unclear which view was actually held until the late 19th century (and by whom, why, etc...).

So, with all do respect, do not just undo edits but improve on them. weekeepeer (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It was not bloated, and it was better as it was before. Your version did not add to its clarity. This discussion should be on the article's Talk page, not here, as it's now on my Watchlist. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorcerer[edit]

Dave Salven was a producer for this movie but got fired, I know he didn't have the credit after all. If you have anything else to contribute, some pieces of info conflicting with what is already in the article, please do tell me here or on Sorcerer's talk page or on mine (it doesn't exist yet, I couldn't be bothered, I returned here after like 5 years with a diff. account) , because I know that certain matters related to the production and whatnot are presented in a conflicting way in different media outlets and I'm perfectly aware of that.

Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you've changed what happened with Salven. It makes sense he wasn't fired, as he was line producer on a few films for Friedkin afterwards. But as I said on the Talk page, it looks like you have done a good job building up the Sorcerer article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sofia Coppola[edit]

Thanks for the edit, i didn't know how to go back to previous version

--Gargoyle Firebrand (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TV Apes[edit]

Hi. I made 2 edits to the page for the Planet of the Apes TV series. THE LIBERATOR did air, on 12-6-74. It wasn't "unaired". Not only did I watch this as it aired (and noted it in my diary) but it is also listed as having aired in 2 books: the first-ever book about APES, PLANET OF THE APES AS AMERICAN MYTH by Eric Greene; and Joe Russo's PLANET OF THE APES REVISITED, which has an introduction by Charlton Heston. Greene, BTW, is interviewed in BEHIND THE POTA, as well as in the Blu-ray documentaries (as is Russo), so this is about as official as anything can be. Both books list UP ABOVE THE WORLD SO HIGH as 12-20-74. I have never seen any book that lists a different date for UP. Only the DVD box lists LIBERATOR as unaired (most likely to help sales). No book does. I know several internet sites list different dates (LIBERATOR is listed as 12-13-74 at IMDB, which isn't true -- my diary lists the 12-13-74 segment as a rerun of ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW, the only segment to be shown twice on CBS), but these are not books. Anyway, the truth is this, take it from the sources I mentioned as well as my being there: LIBERATOR was 12-6-74; a rerun of ESCAPE was 12-13-74; UP was 12-20-74. And that was it; CBS didn't rerun the series. I would like to put this information on the APES TV SERIES page, but only if you OK it. Let me know. Thank you. Abbythecat (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Abbythecat.

The problem is you didn't explain any of this when you made the edits. You may be right - I certainly have no diary from when the show aired (not that it could be used as a reliable source on WP). I reverted because you deleted the long-standing previous data without explanation. You should replicate this info on the Planet of the Apes (TV series) Talk page so others can assess it as well, giving your sources - including for the runtime. Let a few days go by, then we'll decide how to use it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I don't have time to argue right now since I'm not done with my course yet, but I think you should read the science fiction article which also discusses speculative fiction and read the speculative fiction article which already listed science fiction can appear within the scope speculative fiction. As you pointed out WP:NOR is not acceptable here and your comment on my talk page is an example of your own original research. It cannot be simply science fiction without speculation based on your own personal conclusion. If you can provide satisfactory sources in the meantime to support your statements, then your arguments can be accepted. Please see WP:RS for more on that.-Taeyebaar (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, science fiction and is not necessarily speculative fiction. As you can see both genres are separateand have they're own separate articles on Wikipedia, but both do make the important mention of them coming together. See cross genres for more on that. Once you've read the articles and I'm finished with my summer course, I hope you can come up with sources to support your claims and we can have a decent and respectful discussion on it. Also be sure of maintaining a polite and respectful conduct when engaging with fellow editors or anyone else you interact with on Wikipedia. Please see WP:guidelines for more on that. Thank you Taeyebaar (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of the guidelines. If anything it's you who broke them - you should not go around changing the genre to over a dozen articles, most without discussion. Those articles were clearly classified as science fiction for years until you suddenly altered them. And you should keep this discussion where it started, on your own Talk page, where others who also might respond to your edits can see it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup[edit]

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

APES comment[edit]

Hi - just would like you to check my comments on the 'talk' section of the Planet of the Apes (TV series) page under '2 air dates'. I know it won't change anything, but it's important to me that people know what I wrote is true. best. ~~Abbythecat~~

Film director page move[edit]

You indicated in your move of Andrew Davis (film director) → Andrew Davis (director) that it was per discussions at WT:FILM. I could not find such a recent discussion. When were these discussions? Do you have links? Also isn't that a rather narrow audience, when "director" has so many meanings? --Bejnar (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I moved it from filmmaker to director. As I said at Talk:Andrew Davis (director), there have been discussions at WT:FILM which concluded that the term filmmaker should be avoided in article titles. In the case here Davis usually is credited solely as director anyway. The purpose of disambiguation in a WP page title is to differentiate, not give a complete or specific description of the role a person does. That should be done in the article. This is not always the perfect solution to DAB issues, but it seems to be what consensus has arrived at. This has been brought up more than once on WP Talk pages. For example I recall the reaction when Walter Hill (director) was moved to Walter Hill (filmmaker), then eventually back again. Discussions at WT:FILM are archived after 14 days, but this can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 41#Walter Hill: director or filmmaker? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 8#Walter Hill: director or filmmaker?. More recently John Waters (1934 Academy Award winner) was moved to John Waters (director born 1893), as discussed at length at Talk:John Waters (director born 1893) - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Gothicfilm is correct and has been thorough in providing links to past discussions. Here is a recent one Talk:Steve McQueen (director)#Different disambiguation term.3F. I am adding it to show that the consensus has continued and so that all of these are in one place if I ever need to come and copy them to paste in another discussion. Thanks again for being so thorough G. MarnetteD | Talk 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I had to go back more than a year for the Walter Hill discussion, but I thought it could be useful to put it on the record here. Thanks for the additional link. I agree it's good to have them in one place. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup[edit]

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Revived interest in the film Infernal Affairs[edit]

Invitation to participate in the poll for Infernal Affairs.

From your edits for the film Infernal Affairs there is presently a poll taking place on The Departed film Talk page regarding whether you believe a separate subsection should be included for (a) Infernal Affairs as a source for the plot of The Departed film, and/or (b) a second subsection for the recently captured crime figure Whitey Bulger as the source for the character played by Jack Nicholson in the film.

The recent capture of Bulger has revived the question from two years ago of Infernal Affairs from when it did have a separate subsection on The Departed film page which was deleted by User:RepublicanJ, now known as User:OldJ. Invite to visit The Departed Talk page, to the Bulger section at the end of the Page, to participate in the Poll currently taking place. 208.120.96.227 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Psycho remake[edit]

Doesn't this reliable source say that Moodupani is the Indian remake of Psycho? It does not say whether it is an official remake or a loose one, but we can still use the source can't we? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The term remake means it's officially based on the same property as a previous work. One book author wrongly using the term does not overcome the word's actual meaning. That film is not a remake, no one involved with it bought any rights. As the film's article says, it is "inspired from" Psycho, as have been many other films much better known. It is not particularly notable and does not belong in the Sequels and remakes section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
So u r basically saying I can't even write that the film is loosely based on Psycho? If yes, fine then. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Steadicam, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thons at UC Riverside[edit]

The UCR Libraries are hosting three edit-a-thons focusing on their great special collections (science fiction, water resources, the Inland Empire and more) on Oct. 12, 2013, Oct. 26, 2013, and Nov. 23, 2013. Please participate if you can! Details and signup here. All are welcome, new and experienced editors alike! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Belle authorship issue[edit]

Many if not almost all films have minor revisions by more that writer. After the credits are awarded noone else can claim any authorship other that the writer(s) awarded the credit. eg In the Pretty Woman section in wikipedia it does not name the other writer who tweaked the script while discussing the development of the script. This section is part of the campaign by supporters of Amma Asnate with the sole agenda of delegitmising the sole credit awarded Misan Sagay. It awards her the writing credit she did not earn. None of the responsible industry press have touched this "issue" because it isn't one. Asante has managed to get the gossip columnist to air this.The article is selectively quoted - why do you not quote Asnate's statements? Or Misan Sagay's that there was an attempt to rob her of the credit. The article should be about how the WGA arbitration process unmasked Amma Asante as a plagiarist who misrepresented to the Actors and the world that she was the sole author of a screenplay that was in fact written by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.139.253 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of the WGA screenwriting credit system. As you have seen, my first concern is that the film's credits are properly reflected in the WP article. But I will leave further discussion to the Talk:Belle (2013 film) page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (franchise) edit issues[edit]

Hello. I didn't want to make it seem like I'm engaging in an edit war over this and I hope we can resolve the POTA issues... But please ackowledge that the 2001 film is both a remake and a reboot whereas for example the 2011 film is simply a reboot. A film can be both and that is a common case. A reboot is a film in a franchise that disregards previous films' continuity, and the 2001 film is both the first contiunity reboot of the franchise and a loose remake of the original film. You can check out the article for reboots in fiction in case you don't fully understand the concept of one! :) Therefore I'd like to re-add that back into the articles if that is fine with you. Also, all films that are installments of franchises feature their installment number in their lead sections, despite being reboots. And that's a pretty common thing, but if you really feel like it's confusing we can drop that I guess. Anyways, am I permitted to go back and re-add the reboot attributes to the films or is it still an issue? Please do keep in mind that I'm not saying the 2001 film isn't a remake by any means, it is simply also a reboot which I feel is important to address. --WickedWays (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, most RS consider the 2001 film a remake. It did not start a new series, so there's no point in confusing it with the 2011 film that did. The POTA articles have stood many months labelled as they are, with the 2001 film a remake and the 2011 film a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The 2009 Friday the 13th film did not start a new series either, but it is still a reboot and that was noted in its lead section. Neither did the 2010 Nightmare on Elm Street, just to name a couple that come to mind. The 2001 film is a remake of a film and a reboot of a franchise, while the 2011 one is a reboot altogether, and I don't see anything confusing about that really. A reboot means to drop continuity, not to start a new film series. It can be a single film with no follow-ups, that really doesn't matter. And I think this should be pointed out, since it is on all articles for other franchise reboots, to maintain the consistency.--WickedWays (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A remake is just as much out of the original's continuity as a reboot. A reboot's main definition is it starts a new series. That's how the term came into common usage in film. As the reboot article says - With reboots, filmmakers revamp and reinvigorate a film series. The POTA articles would not benefit by having your definition added. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. A reboot does not have to start a new series to be a reboot, and that isn't really it's definition at all. Film series can be reinvigorated with a single film (which that really means is boosting a franchise's box office revenue among other things). The 2001 film was a failed attempt at reinvigorating the POTA franchise, but that doesn't make it any less of an attempt. And according to encyclopedic definitions, any film in a franchise that disregards continuity is a reboot, so technically if a remake is a part of a franchise it's automatically a reboot. Maybe therefore this shouldn't be pointed out since in a way it is a given, but there are many other films that are both remakes of films and reboots of franchises that have both of those things mentioned on their pages. Again, this is all so articles would be consistent to each other but if it's "confusing" then never mind... Cheers! --WickedWays (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA in downtown LA[edit]

LA Meetup: March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA
Moca.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the Museum of Contemporary Art in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday, March 9, 2014 from 11 am to 6 pm! This event is in collaboration with MOCA and the arts collective East of Borneo and aims to improve coverage of LA art since the 1980s. (Even if contemporary art isn't your thing, you're welcome to join too!) Please RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! User:Calliopejen1 (talk)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Film director[edit]

The MOS WP:MOS says the title should not be repeated in subtitles. You reverted my corrections to this practice in the film director article. I also disagree with you calling the director/producer salary figure inappropriate. It is a great improvement over the current state, which has zero salary info.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Putting producer salaries in the average for directors on the film director page is clearly not appropriate. And there's a difference between film directors and TV directors, both on WP and with your source. And your source is quite wrong with the claim that directors have final say. Most do not have final cut or "final say". Many disputes have been documented with directors being overruled in casting and other creative aspects of filmmaking. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

May 10 Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in LA[edit]

LA Meetup: May 10 Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon
Smithsonian logo color.svg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the Junipero Serra Branch of the LA Public Library (4607 S. Main St., 90037) on Saturday, May 10, 2014 from 10 am to 4 pm! This event is sponsored by the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center and the Asian Pacific American Librarians Association and aims to improve coverage of Asian Pacific American topics, particularly as they relate to southern California. Please RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

LA edit-a-thons on May 23 and 31[edit]

LA meetups: Adrianne Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thons on May 23 and May 31
Adrianne Wadewitz-6727.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

There are two LA edit-a-thons in memory of Adrianne Wadewitz, a prolific Wikipedia editor, in the coming weeks. Please join us May 23 at Occidental College and May 31 at the Institute of Cultural Inquiry to combat systemic bias and help further Adrianne's legacy. No experience needed! Please RSVP at the relevant page(s) if you plan to attend.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. events on June 21 and July 6[edit]

Upcoming L.A. events: Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon (Saturday, June 21, 12-5pm) and Wiknic (Sunday, July 6, ~9:30am-4pm)

Gallery at 356 S. Mission Rd.
Get hungry for the Wiknic!

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

The L.A. Wikipedia community has two exciting events coming up in the next few weeks: an edit-a-thon sponsored by the online magazine East of Borneo, and the fourth annual Los Angeles Wiknic!

The East of Borneo event is an edit-a-thon that aims to build a better history of art in Southern California. This next chapter of their Unforgetting L.A. series will take place on Saturday, June 21, 2014 from 12pm to 5pm at 356 S. Mission Rd. (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. For more info, see eastofborneo.org/unforgetting.

The Wiknic is a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is tentatively planned for Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Sunday, July 6, 2014 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Stanley Kubrick[edit]

There are a few new editors to the article that may be making extensive changes. I've noted some potential problems on the talk page, but since you also worked on the article, your input might help. --Light show (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The Longest Day[edit]

So why are you removing Mickey Knox's name from the credits? If you want me to place the reference in the middle of the cast last I will.Foofbun (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated in my revert, WP does not list bit parts, especially when they are uncredited. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually didn't see your comments. I think an exception would be as he also acted as a dialogue director on the film and has enough credits to be regarded a major actor.Foofbun (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
He had no credit on the film. Not as actor or "dialogue director" - a position that wouldn't be added to a Cast list anyway. He should be listed on the pages of films where he had a major, credited part. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon on September 6[edit]

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 6 from 11am to 4pm
Armory Center for the Arts.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are invited to meet up with online magazine East of Borneo for an edit-a-thon to build a better history of art in Southern California. This next event in their Unforgetting L.A. series will take place on Saturday, September 6, 2014 from 11am - 4pm at the Armory Center for the Arts in Pasadena (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. For more info, see eastofborneo.org/unforgetting.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. Meetup on September 21[edit]

The 20th Los Angeles meetup: Sunday, September 21 from 11am to 4pm

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

Join us on Sunday, September 21, from 11am to 4pm at Kramer Studio in Mid-City (map) for a meetup and edit-a-thon! Get to know the Los Angeles Wikipedia community and do some editing (or learn to edit!) in a collaborative environment. Please RSVP and consider becoming a member of the SoCal task force to help us improve articles about everything in the region.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.