Jump to content

User talk:Erik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OnlyForQuadell (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 1 September 2011 (→‎Good-Bye: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Box office gross formats

I have started using the approach I got from you, with simplifying the box office gross amounts ($117,546,882 → $117.5 million), on many of the articles I keep up. Though I'm having hard time on The Smurfs with keeping that format. Users (mostly IP's) insist on changing it to the long format and one editor started a discussion on the talk page asking why this format is being used when "most" film articles do not. I showed them featured articles and articles you work using that format. Do you think this should be the preferred way to go on all articles, or should it be left up to the main editors of that page? At first I didn't care for it but I now find it just easier to manage, easier to read, and the fact that most reliable sources write it that way anyway.—Mike Allen 02:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that most film articles don't round the box office figures. I started rounding because I saw someone make the good point that the figures are falsely precise. It's a little unrealistic to say that all the dollars paid to see a movie were counted. In addition, there is not much value to knowing how many thousands or hundreds were made after however many million dollars. You're right, some sources do round too, though they're estimates. (Like Variety will report an estimated $10.5 million or whatever for a film's opening weekend, and it will be updated later, but still, that probably contributed to my thoughts about rounding.) We could start a discussion at WT:FILM about it? I don't necessarily want to push for it on a guidelines level; just hoping that for some upcoming films that readers and novice editors will see the figures and understand the point of the format. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, what do you think of "Crew" sections like at Contagion (film) or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (film)? I was inspired by W.E (film) and think it can go a long way toward identifying crew members who typically win awards (e.g., production designer). You saw the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film about that. Since I've added some sections, I've created Penny Rose and Victor J. Zolfo (per WP:ANYBIO and their recognition through awards or nominations). I know that crew members are not as popular as cast members to identify, but I think that it helps to identify their names in film articles for cross-navigation. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should just be on articles known to get awards? On the other hand, I believe the production designer is extra important for horror and action films (The PD constructed all the trap devices in the Saw films, but of course films like Saw do not receive mainstream awards, lol). The only one I wouldn't include is the Casting agent. Under the Crew section, couldn't prose be added under individual names, or should that remain in the Production section?
On a kind of different note and while I'm here.. I found a CinemaScore score here, but they say that "Saw II garnered a moderate 87% favorable grade from moviegoers" is it okay to say that is a "B"? —Mike Allen 01:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on "Casting" and decided to drop it from Contagion. I haven't included that one in a couple other articles' "Crew" sections. I think that the sections help provide navigation to key figures behind the film even if they may not have won an award for it or may not be explicitly mentioned in coverage. For example, at 47 Ronin (film), we can see that Jan Roelfs is the production designer and what his credentials are. I think too many articles are one-way streets, where someone has to win an award for a given film for a reader to finally look at the person's background. I'm still thinking of ways to fine-tune the presentation, for example making a collapsible table that could just fall under the "Production" section.
As for CinemaScore, that is an odd score... I've never seen percents associated with CinemaScore, only letter grades. I would not use it and would try to see if a letter grade is provided elsewhere. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought maybe that's how they were calculated in 2005. But their Wikipedia article has no mention of that. :( —Mike Allen 04:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filming has begun.

Filming has begun. See this source. [1]

Can I put the article back please?The Editor 155 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Thanks for the reference. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I put the incubated article up instead of my own version of the article, so can you please remove the tag on the article?

We need to preserve page history wherever possible. If you look here, there is very little page history. We are basically bringing the page history here over to the mainspace. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCM FAC

Hi, Erik. I was wondering if you could have a look over at The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and its current FAC. I'd quite appreciate it, it seems very close to passing. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 09:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Film

done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I'm not sure why as a third party this private matter is of interest to you. Unless, of course, you are not really a third party. It doesn't seem remarkable to me that one person may claim that saying "you have no balls" is acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. It does seems remarkable to me that a second person would believe so, when common sense says that obviously it is not. I also note that same use of boldface in both your tendencies. I think perhaps a SPI may be in order. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that OnlyForQuadell has been uncivil, but I also think that you did not need to revert him. All this started with a word and a space being removed. You both keep responding to each other and taking each other's words in the worst way possible. One of you needs to be the better man and walk away because there is nothing left to discuss. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good-Bye

I think Wikipedia's main problem is its societey, and the dropping user numbers support my view. So I think it's important to not hand the whole thing over to people like Acroterion and Tenebrae, but to resist them. I'm truly sorry that I couldn't explain it better.

Anyway, thanks for your contribution to the mess. Have fun! --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik&oldid=447913640"