User talk:Before My Ken/archives 8 Oct 2008

ARCHIVE PAGE 8: OCTOBER 2008

Tiger Direct (Removal of Censorship Template)

Please include yourself in the discussion before removing improvement templates from an article. Censorship/neutrality issues have been an large and ongoing issue for this article for some time. Though I haven't really seen any issues of this sort that recently, I don't know if the rest of us are comfortable removing the templates just yet. All I ask is you join the discussion first. Thanks. meinsla ^talk 05:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you were right the first time

I think, in terms of having a "neutral" photo, Image:Aaron Sorkin 20 August 2008 crop.jpg is better than Image:Aaron Sorkin at the Music Box Theatre in 2007 crop.jpg; in the first, Sorkin is looking directly at the camera and is not in mid-speech. Additionally, it has the virtue of not making him look like he is about to eat somebody, as the second does. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I assume you made the switch already -- if not I'll do it. If you see a better free Sorkin image, let me know. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the Sorkin article, when the user Homely Features' block expires at 02:00 (UTC), would you be happy to let him/her continue editing the page without reverting? I don't know if you saw my response at WT:FILM, but after reviewing most of his/her edits, I'm of the opinion that the editor's incivility in edit summaries and elsewhere masked what were genuine improvements. I think yesterday's drama is one that could easily have been avoided if we'd kept it off AN/I, and the net gain to the project if Homely Features learns to engage properly with other editors is worth taking the softly-softly approach on this occasion. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did see your earlier remarks. I'm happy to see how HF approaches his editing on the article. If he takes it a little more slowly, perhaps section by section, and discusses major changes on the talk page before implementing them, and doesn't edit war, that's one thing, but if he jumps right in and starts editing in the manner he was doing previously, I think there's probably a significant problem that needs addressing. As I mentioned on AN/I, his manner seems rather like that of a "true believer", so it wouldn't surprise me if he couldn't control his impulse to edit convulsively, but, sure, he should be given a chance, absolutely. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I think letting the editor be for a while to see what improvements can be made is the best course of action here. Reverting the edits out of hand as they occur will only lead to an escalation of the kind we saw yesterday. After all, if he/she makes a complete hash of it, we can always revert to a previous version in a couple of days. But, despite the frenzied editing, I would wait until the editor's revisions seem to be complete; taken in isolation, some of those might have looked destructive, but as a whole they were OK, and provided a net gain to the article. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve: Sorry, but your boy just reverted the infobox photo back to an inferior picture, with a caption that's unnecessarily detailed, so I've reverted back. I'm no expert on Sorkin, but I know when one photo is better than another. We'll see what HF does with my reversion, which might give us a clue as to how he's going to behave.

My question to you is: why doesn't he take the friggin' article into his sandbox and work on it and then present his total package, instead of doing it piecemeal like this? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible tables in AOL9.0

Hi, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm almost certainly responsible, because I recently updated the code for collapsible tables (of which the wikiproject banners are the most obvious example) to include new functionality. As you note, it worked fine in every browser I tested it in, but clearly there's an issue. I've applied one fix that might have solved the issue, but not having the browser myself I can't actually check if it's working. Can you tell me if the problem is still occuring? You might need to purge your cache to get the latest version of the javascript code. Happy‑melon 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox photograph for Aaron Sorkin article

Hi: I would like to have a debate about which photograph to use in the Infobox for the Aaron Sorkin article so I have started a debate on the article's talk page. Please join me, Homely Features (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't participate in a debate, but I'll happily get involved in a discussion. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 07:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

George Sanders

hi Ed. Just as a courtesy I'm letting you know that I've restored the free image of George Sanders. An acceptable free image is always going to be the preference over any unfree image, and the quality of the image is not the point. If it was, we could simply scavenge the internet for nice images of every subject and upload them on the basis that they are better than the free images we've managed to obtain. There are 7 free images of Sanders on Commons. None of them are exceptional, in fact none of them are particularly good, but that is irrelevant as all show what he looked like. We can't introduce an unfree image on the basis that it is of higher quality. Rossrs (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ross: Thanks for the note, I was expecting it. If you would, could you put a similar note on User talk:20yearoldboyfromNY's (sorry, can't recall the actual username) talk page. I more or less put the FUR on the Sanders article to show him what would have been needed to use a non-free image, but I had already warned him that it wasn't going to pass muster because there were free images available. Can you make clear to him why that's the case?. Thanks.

I assume you restored the most recent image? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss more with you about the poor free image vs. good non-free image issue, as I think that an absolutist stance hurts us there, but in this case, my quality argument about the Sanders photo was pretty much whistling in the dark. Yes, the formal headshot is a much better photo than the cropped screenshot, but not so much better as to make an argument for its use carry much weight. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I was worried this might cause a problem between us, and I'm happy that it hasn't. Of course, I'll be more than willing to discuss this further with you, and I'll drop a note to 20yearoldboyfromNY. Rossrs (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

re Image:Oliveraphoto.jpg

Thx. Best -- Luigibob (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Forester de Rothschild categories

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynn_Forester_de_Rothschild&diff=243218365&oldid=243153807 Regarding the categories you added at Lynn Forester de Rothschild, I'm not sure that Category:Politics of the United States, Category:Economy of India or Category:Elections in the United States. The US Politics category describes itself as "This category is for articles on the conduct, practice, and doctrine of politics in the United States", and while she has been involved with candidates, her article certainly does not rise to this level. US Elections might be closer, but this is for articles about elections, not supporters of candidates. The India category is about the economy of the country, not about individual entrepreneurs who have done business there. There might be some subcategories that are better matches, but none of these three seem appropriate. Any thoughts? Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think she definitely fits into politics -- it's why she's got an article in the first place. Re: elections, is there a cat for the current presidential election? That would be better. Re: India if there's a subcat that fits better, I have no objection. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Georg John

Dear Ed Fitzgerald, not to be misunderstood, but now the article is full of red links, while you removed my (single) red link at M (1931 film) within 8 minutes. Will you create articles on all of these movies? And as a minor point, I think, the Vaterländische Schauspiele was the name of that theater, not just a description of what they did.HerkusMonte (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed?

No need to be disappointed for the reactions of some wikipedians. There's loads of other appreciating some help, and I am one of them. Thanks you for correcting without fingerpointing Galoubet (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:George Sanders.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:George Sanders.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FTR, notified the original uploader, User:20yearoldboyfromNY Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Right Stuff

What formatting problems does the spacing fix? I checked it in IE and it seems to look fine... -Mike Payne (T • C) 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Claude Rains

Hi Ed, I like the way you've cropped the image, and I think it looks fine. He's in kind of an odd pose, (I think he's bracing himself to shout at Bette Davis, and he's naturally a little tense), so I can understand your comments, but it gives him a bit of dramatic flair. It's good, in my opinion. Rossrs (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How About No?

How about that? I am a guerrilla editor, I fight for what is correct. Dr Strangelove is a character not a movie, my brethren. 10:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabunga (talk • contribs)

Update on sorting discussion

Update. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Inserting Space

Ed, I think you need to keep in mind that brute force inserting space will work only on your computer. Every web browser renders web pages differently. So inserting space to make something look good on Internet Explorer 7.0, on a computer running Windows XP, with a display set to 1024x1280, may have the opposite affect on a computer with a different setup, such as, someone running Firefox on a Macintosh with a display set to 1960x1200, etc. It's not a good idea to brute force spacing, it's better to let the web browser do it's thing. If absolutely necessary, the way to tell the wiki software to insert space, without brute forcing it is template:-, invoked like this: {{-}}. Dave (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave: Thanks for the tip.

I was aware that page rendering will be different on different systems and different browsers, which is why I frequently check the space insertion under Firefox, Safari, XP, smaller resultions, etc. Obviously, though, I can't check every possible variety of installation, so your point is well taken. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'm not sure why you moved them where you did. The placement looks ghastly. And I am trying to figure out the image sizes. Someplace I saw a guideline that says they should always be at the default size, that readers should click them if they want to see more detail. But everywhere in the film articles I see enlarged images. Is there a different standard for film articles and where can I find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abato piscorum (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The de facto answer is yes.

In what way is the layout "ghastly"? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, did you get my previous message? You didn't reply. I found where it says not to manually size image, on this page. Could you please show me where it says to put images with whitespace instead of text? I can't find anything like that and in fact the examples show precisely how to place images into text surroundings.

Why are you undoing everything I try to do to make the article look better? Are you in charge here?

You are not making it look better, far from it. You want to talk, fine, but not while you're screwing around making terrible choices. Stop, and we'll talk. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you, I think your choices look terrible. And it IS a policy, NOT a guideline. It says so right at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abato piscorum (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh, sure. Bye. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Lady Vanishes

Hello Ed. I can only offer a 1000 apologies and say that I was breaking one of the cardinal rules here - "Don't Edit Just Before Falling Asleep!!!". The only thing that I meant to putback in was the fact that Charters and Caldicott had a life after this film. I enjoyed both the original actors reappearence in other films and I still have (on an aging and fading VHS) the British TV serial from 1985 with Robin Bailey and Michael Aldridge, which was both well done and fun. If you think that there is some way to reenter that with better wording I would appreciate it but if you don't I will understand. Let me just send my second set of 1000 apologies and send my regards too. MarnetteD | Talk 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(no problem, straightened out, see your talk page)

Got your reply and many thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 00:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Carole Lombard

Hi Ed, I'm currently going through a bit of a Carole Lombard phase, and I notice you uploaded Image:No Man of Her Own 1932 screenshot.jpg. You have it tagged as a copyrighted film, but this is actually in the public domain. I've got a copy of the film and have made a number of screenshots which I've never gotten around to uploading - but this is really something - a free image that shows Lombard and Gable together! Rossrs (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great! Are the shots you have better than the one I have up? The article could use a couple more images in any case. I'll change the info on my image. What are the circumstances of it going PD, someone forgot to renew? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not so great. I was looking for the site that I had found previously that listed it as public domain and it's now closed down, and I can't find anything else to support this. This is very disappointing but I'll keep looking. To answer your question, the others pictures aren't necessarily better - just different. Rossrs (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a little research, probably duplicating what you've done already, and like you I couldn't find any evidence to suggest that it's in the public domain -- everything seems to point the other way. Sorry. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame. Also, thank you for revising my user page each time that idiot updates it. Honestly, if people have to vandalise someone else's user page, at the very least they should bring some humor and intelligence to their vandalism. I'm offended that someone has chosen to vandalise my page so boringly.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the vandals of yesteryear? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

re: James Cagney

Hi Ed and thanks. Yes, we've looked there and there is precious little. User:Ged UK was hoping for more candid photos of him, rather than just screenshots. We're looking! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PD candids seem to be in short supply. In fact, candids or any kind. I wonder if Cagney kept a close watch on his image - it wouldn't surprise me. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Spacing in articles

I saw that in several articles I edited yesterday there was a hidden comment stating "spacing, do not remove". I didn't see a reason why the space needed to be there and was wondering if you could explain it. I don't want to keep deleting these if there is a valid reason. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the min./minutes issue, personally I think it looks better and for the majority of the film articles I've seen over the last few years on Wikipedia, the infobox goes with the first version. I am one of the largest proponents of linking year in film for articles, but I think it should only be linked in the opening sentence and after films mentioned in the article (ex. "...also released The Dark Knight (2008), before...". However, for the infobox, since it was decided not to wikilink full dates anymore, it looks awkward to have the year linked while the date remains plain text (ex. March 11, 2008). I will continue to make sure they are linked in the opening sentence (have actually fixed a few today). Let me know if that clarifies it for you. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm pretty sure disagreements are allowed. I'll probably keep changing them, but if I change one in an article you are interested in, feel free to change it back in a few days once I'm long gone. I'm currently going through about 30 articles to find reliable revisions to prepare for the 0.7 release and just doing a quick/extensive cleanup of the articles to prepare the revision. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Filmyear

Template:Filmyear has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC) .

James Cagney photos

Hard telling what the problem is. It won't display on mine, either, although it displays OK when you go to the actual photo. I suggest you try a different thumb size, or just omit the thumb size altogether, and see how it behaves. Meanwhile, I think that one photo is not "Give My Regards to Broadway", it's "Yankee Doodle Boy", sung at the racetrack, as you can tell by the background and the chorus girls. "Give My Regards to Broadway" was done as a solo, at the pier. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you're right. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c}

I was able to make it display by taking away all the technical stuff except "right". It doesn't like the "thumb" or the size parameters. I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but it was uploaded with a space just before the ".jpg". I recommend that you re-upload it, without that space, and with maybe a different size. I've seen that work in the past. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was Rossrs who uploaded it. I noticed the space, but I doubt that it's the problem, because I've seen this happen before, and I had the same problem with the Fopotlight Parade image earlier today. I'm off to report it on WP:VPT, and I'm going to rehide the image until rendering is fixed. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall awhile back there was a St. Louis Cardinals logo that would not display properly. They uploaded under a different size and it worked. However, I don't think they had the little red "X", but just that it wouldn't display. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at VPT, apparently there was a crash (I couldn't get on for about a half hour) which was in some way related to the image servers, so I assume that's related to this. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

File:James Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy trailer.JPG

Cagney singing TYDB

Previous version

I re-saved and re-uploaded it, although it has the wrong licensing, but this is just a test. However, it looks like the previous version works now too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uncovering it. I'm going to work on the article a bit more tonight. I haven't got an answer at WP:VPT, but I have seen elsewhere that the Commons database is corrupted, and they expect it to take a few days to get back into shape. I assume that the database is catching up on images little by little, so hopefully they've already restored all the images Ross uploaded last night. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

They have since deleted my test-upload, at my request, hence the redlink. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Filmography

Hi. I don't normally remove redlinks on film titles, unless I've decided there is little chance that articles will be created for them (such as the shorts in the Mickey Rooney filmography, for example). When I construct one, I don't always start them out with redlinks, though, especially for older, more obscure films or television shows. In this particular instance, I removed the redlinks from the Cagney filmography in anticipation of the Version 0.7 release and did so in one edit that can be easily undone. I believe they will use the version in place on Monday and I simply think it looks better for a hard copy (disk) release without the redlinks, if those show up in that version. Having said all that, I'm a little ambivalent overall about redlinks in filmographies. I suppose my feelings about fall along the lines of what I've said already. Redlinks aren't inherently bad, nor are they inherently good. I don't think a proliferation of them are good, especially in the realm of shorts, very old or obscure films, and I don't use them in those cases. I think WP is mostly best served by having redlinks to what might logically actually become articles. Sorry if this seems all over the place - I did say I'm ambivalent about them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yankee Doodle Dandy Cagney.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yankee Doodle Dandy Cagney.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Rear Window#Continuing after Ed Fitzgerald's WP:3RR vio

See Talk:Rear Window#Continuing after Ed Fitzgerald's WP:3RR vio. Since the indentation was getting deep I started a new section. 72.244.204.2 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

So you did. Very clever of you.

Say, do you think the Mariners are going to make some improvements in the team next year? They really had a lousy season, didn't they? So disappointing after so many years of good teams, but they all go through bad patches I guess.

Well, have a nice day. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Film style guidelines BRD cycle

Just a tip: generally, when making non-trivial changes to MOS pages and other guidelines, it is considered good form to avoid BRD in favor of starting with discussion. Being bold is great for many purposes, but the whole purpose of guidelines is to establish and reflect standards and practices, so starting with consensus building before the edit tends to be more crucial. Making amendments without prior consultation of fellow editors can be seen as brusque. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was brusque - as I mentioned, I was annoyed.

Thanks for the tip. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Pink Panther issues

There is no need to discuss the adding of a trivia tag. WP:TRIVIA clearly indicates that editors should "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." It can be argued that the one in The Pink Panther Strikes Again is not a list, but it seems like one to me, just lacking bullets. But I won't belabour that point. Regardless, simply removing those tags is not a proper solution. If you care about those articles, they would be better served by you fixing the problem, rather than just pretending it doesn't exist. Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for the hatnotes you seem to insist on restoring. Please read WP:HAT (specifically Wikipedia:HAT#Examples of improper use) and you will see those are unnecessary. Hatnotes aren't there to guide people to related subjects, but to aid in navigation when someone may mistkenly land on a particular page. There is no chance of someone landing on The Pink Panther (1963 film) when aiming for The Pink Panther (2006 film). Pink Panther (film) is a disambiguation page, so there is no need for a hatnote on the 1963 film. The hatnote there is a case of disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. Rhindle The Red (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Believers (film)

My bad. Learning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So if I read this correctly, I may use "Critical reception" to place succinct quotes reviewer's comments, citing then the souces of the remark? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Good or bad, a review is a review... and critics do not always agree. It is the amount of coverage, pro or con, in reliable sources that may be indicative of notability. Since I am much dealing at AfD's with films and people I have never heard of before, I'll be best to keep reviews down at external links like you showed. Thank you very much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Just was also agreeing that I should not give one review more weight than another simply because it is "better" for the article, and that I must be very careful to myself be neutral. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dietrich

That works fine. I didn't like how they overlapped the sections. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RfCs

The reason editors who have already debated the subject should generally not take part in the RfC is because of that very reason, they've already discussed the issue. The point of an RfC is because you are trying to generate a wider population of editors, with fresher opinions. If the people that had already debated the subject take part in the RfC then they're just going to be rehashing the same argument in a completely new section of the page. RfC's look to attract third-party editors that have not been caught up in the previous debates. It allows for more neutral reactions to the issue, and hopefully create a more clearly definted consensus line.

But, to clarify, it isn't that previous debators cannot comment in the RfC section, it's mostly that they shouldn't be restating the same arguments over again (that is why we provide links to the previous discussions for the RfC'ers, so they can see what we all said prior to their arrival). That being said, if someone brings up a new argument (something that wasn't discussed previously...some new way of looking at something), anyone is welcomed to provide a rebuttle to that argument. Again, it's all about trying to create an environment that isn't just a copy/paste job of all the old discussions. Did I do a decent enough job of explaining?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The page certainly isn't the clearest thing. You could make a request that it better explain its rationale for "outside input" for the discussions for editors that are not familiar with that concept. lol. That would be funny to do...requesting comments on a request for comment page. lol. Anyway, that actually might be a good idea to look into. Right now, I have Termer threatening to call the RfC invalid because Garion96 made a comment a month ago that he wanted to remove all of the links from all infoboxes (it was on the discussion about the Actor Infobox and not the Film Infobox, which means he never actually participated in the discussion about the Film Infobox).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pink Panther articles

Please do not just rename those trivia sections as "Production notes" and think that solves the problem. They will still fall under the description given at WP:TRIVIA as a "lists of miscellaneous facts". Work them into a cohesive prose "Production" section or leave the tag in place so someone else can do so. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

Hello, I'm working on a "Marketing" component as you can see at WT:MOSFILM, and I was wondering if I could ask your expertise on something. The new component feels a little bit contemporary since I tend to work with recent and upcoming films on Wikipedia. I was wondering about the history of marketing when it came to older films. Are there any specific marketing topics that may warrant such a section? I'm not familiar enough with older films to know, but it seems like there have been some interesting promotions (posters controversial at the time and whatnot). Do you have any familiarity with the matter? (P.S. Nice to see that we haven't been on totally opposite sides of the fence with some of the recent discussions!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to the infobox in MOS:FILM, I'm not sure if using {{fy}} for the release dates has the built-in intuitiveness. The dates are specific, and at a glance, I don't think people would know that it's a "year in film" link. (Making it Easter Egg-ish, as some would say.) Like I've mentioned before, I think there needs to be clearer context for utilizing {{fy}}. Can we talk it out on the MOS talk page? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No real need to talk about it, let's just change it to a "year in film" link, if that's OK. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC Infobox

Just wanted to let you know that since it has been made clear that comments by previous participants in the dispute on the RFC are welcome, you should feel free to comment on it as well.--Termer (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my error regarding the use of the image on the talk page. I fell into an assumption, and you know what they say about assumptions. Thanks again for the correction. As far as use of itallics for film titles, does it hold true when it is simply used as a link to a Wikipedia page? Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Italic issue was dealt with on the template talk page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The endless IMDb debate...

No worries mate. The whole thing does rather seem to be a case of "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!", which isn't getting anybody anywhere. I'm sure I'm just as much to blame as you, so I in turn shall offer my apologies. No doubt we each have more productive ways to spend our Wiki-time, and who knows, maybe we'll see eye to eye next time. Thanks for your comment, it was appreciated. PC78 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Andrew Clements photo.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Andrew Clements photo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? dave pape (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

amg_id

Please stop removing the amg_id without reason from the infobox articles when you edit them. Those are not constructive edits. Cheers Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, I appreciate it. My opinion is that AMG is not a particularly helpful source, which is the reason I remove it. The fact that there is an entry for it in the infobox, doesn't mean that it's required to be filled, nor does it mean that it cannot be removed. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Al Jolson image

Hi Ed. I hope your new job is going well. I ran across this image on the Jolson article and wondered if there was anything that you could do with it to balance out the discoloration? Thanks for any help you can provide! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the image now and see what you think. I stripped out the color, and then made some adjustments. Unfortunately, even with the color gone, there's a distinct difference between her image and his, so if one looks good, the other suffers, and vice versa. I went with a mid-way setting that brings out the detail in her face, but maybe it ends up looking a little too "solarized" around his hairline? Let me know what you think, and I can try to make more adjustments if you'd like. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! It is a huge improvement. He had young wives, didn't he? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Claudette

Thanks Ed. I'm so angry I feel like my head is going to explode. I've had so much dispute with a vandal/tendentious editor on this article for more than a year, and I thought it was over. I'm fairly sure it's the same person because that last edit summary made no sense. Thanks for reverting. I left a message on that person's talk page. I'm all for citing sources, but when we need to have a source cited at the end of every damn sentence, it just makes me want to give up. Palm Beach Story was a huge success. As if it needs a link to some website saying "oh yes, it was a hit". And Cleopatra ...... need to cool down. So, how are things with you? Is the new job going well? Rossrs (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a couple of messages on that editor's talk page; so far he's deleted them with dismissive edit aummaries, but hasn't actually engaged in conversation. Oh well, if he continues that tack, he or she will blocked for non-communication.

I've been looking at the statistics for the Claudette Colbert article, and it's very interesting. There seems to be a number of editors who have similar interests: Colbert and It Happened One Night (that's understandable) but also edits to Parrish (film), which is pretty obscure, to Ritchie Blackmore (!!), and to a number of articles about multi-national people (i.e. "Anglo-Indians", "French-Armenians", etc.), as well as to articles on Vivien Leigh and Madonna, and a concentration of French performers (Charles Boyer, Maurice Chevalier, etc.). Some of these editors have been banned,, at least one is suspected of being a sockpuppet of the other, and our current problem editor fits right in with this group. If we continue to have problems with this editor, I'll have to take the data I have, do some more in-depth research and file a sock-puppet report. I'd rather not, of course, I prefer to hope that they'll behave themselves, but we'll see what course they take. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you got a dismissive edit summary. You must be special. I got no edit summary at all. If it's the same editor, and all evidence suggest so, we should not expect discussion. It's very tiresome. The link you gave above is very interesting. We'll have to keep a watch on things. Just as an unrelated aside, some time ago I stumbled upon a similar tool where you could put in a user name and it would show how many edits a user had made for each article. I wanted to see which articles I've obsessed over the most, but I can't find it anymore. Have you ever seen it? It's almost identical to the one you've linked to, but shows edit stats for an editor rather than edit stats for an article. Rossrs (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The only ones I've seen are the ones at the bottom of the "contributions" page, but they only list the top 15 articles.

In doing some research, I saw that you filed a sockpuppet report on the IP's who have edited the Claudette Colbert article, the ones in the 218.217 and 219.104 range -- too bad no one acted on them at the time, I have no doubt that they're related to our mystery editor, along with Wptfe, Nrh15, Wrbz, Ygr1, Zztp, M06ff1, Ndgb and perhaps others. By editing within an usually tight range of articles, this person has provided plenty of evidence - I have little doubt that a new sockpuppet report will not be ignored. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think we should do what's right even if it doesn't work. You must read the talk history if you haven't already. It's bizarre. I'll ask Wildhartlivie about that other report thing, maybe she's seen it. Rossrs (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to call it a night, so I'll take a look at the talk page tomorrow-ish. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, minor point, but I would exclude Orbicle from the list. I had a fair amount of interraction with him, and in this particular issue we were on the same side. He'd also been around for quite a long time previously as a legitimate editor. He no longer edits. The others - yes I tend to agree. Rossrs (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, before I went to bed, I glanced at the talk archives, and on that basis I removed Orbicle from the list. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding image sizes

If you read Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images and Template:Infobox_Actor, you will see that it says you should only override the default image size if it is necessary, as it will cause problems for people with small screens. This is hardly a case where it is necessary or needed to do this. Britneysaints (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please see the talk page of the article, and make your arguments there. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb enh-lores.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb enh-lores.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Added FURs for all articles. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Metropolis

Can you elaborate on this please? Aside from the obvious effect of more white space (which shouldn't be there, hence my edit), I see no difference in IE without or without the extra lines. Perhaps there is a specific circumstance (IE version, OS, etc) that creates some sort of severe rendering problems? Although, then I would think it would affect more than one page and I've never seen an HTML comment to preserve spacing before. You may respond here or on the article's talk page if you like. I started a thread there a few weeks ago, but received no feedback. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ed, the spacing looks wrong in every other browser. Why should a page be modified so that it displays in a particular version of IE better? Please provide more detail on the issue that you're seeing. davewho2 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the page under both Firefox and Safari, and, while the extra line is certainly not necessary in either of these browsers, the result is also not awful, which is why I proceeded with the add. In Internet Explorer (v.7 under Vista, as well as another installation I checked it under, which I believe was v.6 under Windows XP), without the spacer text is rendered uncomfortably close to the top border of the element below it. At the top of the page, that means that the end of the lede section butts up against the Table of Contents, at the bottom of the page, the end of the article (usually, the Extrenal links) sits right on top of the navboxes below, which is visually crowded and looks terrible.

I can provide screenshots to illustrate this later tonight, if anyone is interested in seeing them. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I should mention that I'm concerned about this not because it's what I see on the page, but because it's what normal everyday people, the kind of folks who use their computer as it came out of the box, with the browser configured with default settings, will see, Internet Explorer still being the default browser of the predominant platform (PC w/ Windows). These people are the kind who we need to attract and hold onto to ensure WP's success, so making sure the page looks good to them becomes an important part of "Good information, well-presented," which should be our goal. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

More on this later - I'm at work at the moment. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Without the extra lines, the white space between the lead and the ToC looks the same as every article to me. With the extra lines, it looks too big. If this is not a strange rendering issue which is somehow specific to the Metropolis article then it sounds like your personal layout preferences (or those which you think suit "normal everyday people") conflict with the accepted style guide. You'd be much better off starting a discussion at the Village Pump to see if consensus can be formed for a policy change than trying to enforce non-standard layout on individual articles with HTML comments. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I have made no changes to my .css file, deliberately so, in order that I see what non-registered people with plain-vanilla set-ups see. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How does MediaWiki render pages differently for registered and non-registered users? I'm still not exactly sure what the problem is here. You mentioned screen shots a few comments back, perhaps that would help? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Registered users can change their settings and alter their CSS file to an extent, making the page render differently. Unregistered users see the default settings, which is why my concern is for how the page renders under default conditions using the most prevalent browser.

Since this question has come up a couple of times, I'm hoping to prepare something which illustrates the problem as I see it, but, unfortunately, I'm being delayed in getting that done as soon as I had planned. I'll post a link here when I've got something for folks to see. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) Sorry I haven't done this yet -- RL getting in the way! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gene Kelly

Regarding this edit: I'm aware that it is a guideline, but I don't see how ignoring it will improve the article. What makes it an occasional exception to the Manual of Style, and why wouldn't it apply to all the other articles in general? —LOL ^T/_C 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One should always be open to the possibility that the Manual of Style is (Dare I say it? Yes, I shall!) wrong. In this case, we should look to the Millennium that ended just recently, and and apply the lessons we learned about using "xx" to mean "19xx" to guide us to a rule of thumb: don't abbreviate years unless you really need to. There is no advantage to using "19xx-yy" as opposed to "19xx-19yy" except the saving of a few bytes, and that's not sufficient to justify that lack of clarity and possibility for confusion that shortened version carries with it. The full expression is one that is much more difficult to be read incorrectly, and should be preferred, no matter what the MoS says. Same with using the hyphen instead of the ndash: a hyphen is much more easily lost in crowded text, the ndash is much clearer visually. These are the ways in which ignoring the MoS will improve the article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the Manual of Style is "wrong" at times because its guidelines do change, but that's not a reason to simply ignore everything that's written there. Your arguments explain why you believe the Manual of Style is wrong, but it doesn't justify Gene's article as an exception to the manual. Wikipedia can't have its articles ignore the manual just because one editor thinks the guidelines are wrong. I recommend that you bring your case on the closing years up to WT:MOSDATE (the policy is here) because simply enforcing it in the articles you find will not stop other editors from following the guideline.

Anyhow, I don't really mind letting the closing years slide because the manual only says they are "normally" written with two digits if they are in the same century. Substituting the HTML entities with Unicode characters isn't that important either because it's only implicitly found in the manual's source code. However, I will continue to enforce the straight quotes (WP:PUNC), dashes and spacing around dashes (WP:DASH) because those guidelines are hard and explicitly stated. —LOL ^T/_C 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL: Your compromise seems perfectly reasonable to me. Thanks for giving due attention to my thoughts on this matter. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I have partially undone your most recent edit on his article, but have left the closing years alone and converted all the Unicode dashes to HTML entities. Let me know if there are any more style issues. —LOL ^T/_C 17:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Invisible Stripes layout

I don't know, the shot of Raft from the trailer actually obscures part of the Infobox (the words "Starring" and "Music" are covered up), something I've never seen in any Wikipedia article. Something should be done about this; if you didn't like the idea of putting the Raft shot above the Infobox, and I didn't think it was ideal myself, I think you should try something else. We should keep the photo in any case, however, since it's a good one from the movie's trailer. Thanks, Ed. --Wastetimer (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it doesn't do that in my browser -- let me look at it and see if I can fix it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletable image caption

hi Ed, I tend to agree with you - I don't think it serves any purpose usually, but in dealing with a tendentious editor or someone as troublesome as this one, I prefer to follow guidelines and policies to the letter. With this particular editor (assuming it's the same one) this seems to be the best approach. Just so you know where I'm coming from, but it's not a big deal. The image was deleted in a very short time. Rossrs (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem on my end, Ross, I understand your motives. It'll be interesting to see if the editor returns or not, and under what name. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Back and editing (see edit history) - and has followed your advice about Louise Brooks too. Rossrs (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So he is, even if his comment is somewhat less than understandable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance templates should go at the top

Hi. Regarding your edits to My Summer of Love, it is common place that maintenance templates, such as the {{Refimprove}} tag which you moved to the bottom, should go at the top of the article instead. See for example Spanish literature. It's navigational templates that can go at the bottom. See for example European Union. See you, --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Anna: Thank you for your note, I am aware that cleanup tags usually go at the top of articles, but, for a number of reasons (which you can see here and here if you're interested), I prefer that they be moved to the bottom of the page, the talk page or elsewhere. Best, Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary Cooper

Hi Ed, I assume you have this on your watchlist, but the anon has left a fairly salty reply to you. Rather than remove it, I have left it, mainly so that any admins can see exactly what a bad faith editor he is. I also left a note on the talk page of SoWhy as he suggested the anon comment on the talk page. I'm not sure what the correct course of action is, but I'm assuming that SoWhy does. Just keeping you in the picture, but obviously if you want to deal with it differently, fair enough, as the comment is directed at you. Rossrs (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I had second thoughts and went back to remove the comment but someone else beat me to it. I wish there was a long term solution. Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Salty indeed! No worries, the anon/bannee obviously has a chip on their shoulder on this subject, perhaps with good reason, I haven't looked into the factuality of the charges. The strange thing is that if that editor is so concerned about setting the record straight (from their point of view), all they would have to do is create a new ID, and edit productively and unobstrusively for a while, then open a civil discussion on the issue and see if they can make their point non-aggresively. But, instead, they keep returning as IP editors who are clearly and immediately identifiable as the banned user, and get their edits reverted as a result.

Sometimes people are so dumb. (Me, too.) Or maybe that it's difficult to hide our essential natures when we're passionately involved. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Code films

I was just going by the page's description. It probably should be simply renamed to something like Films produced from 1930 to 1934 or somesuch. Problem I would have with including pre-1930 films is that it'd be way way too broad. You'd have to include every film made before 1934 so it wouldn't be very helpful or useful. The idea of the cat (I think) is to describe films made after the Code became official but before it was enforced. Just not sure the best way to quantify that in an easy category name. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)