User talk:Erik/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Spider-man 3 article

You seem to have experience with this article so I was wondering if you could give your opinion on something. Currently, I'm engaged in an unfortunate edit war with an unregistered user who wants to add a section about Spider-Man 4 and the Spider-Man reboot. Besides being an unreferenced and awkwardly written section, I argue that Spider-Man 3 has nothing to do with the reboot and shouldn't have it mentioned in the article. And it doesn't have anything to do with it since its reception (box office or critical) did not lead to the reboot. Also, Spider-Man 4 is well-covered in the Spider-Man (film series) article. Can you offer your thoughts?-5- (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

re: FYI

Thanks Erik - I'll have a look at those contributions from BB later. Lugnuts (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, great. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Film articles

Erik, Steve seems to be MIA; I hope he's well. Could you find time to review the issues at Talk:Villa del Cine, and suggest to me an equivalent FA that models an appropriate structure for this article's sections? I am hoping to be able to work on it tonight or tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what expertise I can bring to that particular set of topics. I'm reviewing the WikiProject's Featured Articles, though, and RKO Pictures appears to be one of a similar subject matter. Looks like DCGeist (talk · contribs) was the primary editor; he may be of more help on structuring the article. Wish I could help build content, but I don't have much research access these days! I feel like more of a manager now... Erik (talk | contribs) 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Erik-- I also noticed Mutual Broadcasting System, but neither of them give me much to work with in the way of structure. Both of them are pretty much "History" or "Origin"; I'm wondering how to head things like Production, Facilities, Funding, Projects, Staff, etc. I also thought of Hanna-Barbera (not an FA), but it doesn't give me much to work with either. Would you have time to look over the article content (which I will be expanding today or tomorrow) to suggest some section headings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Black Swan

Hey Erik! Sorry about the edit on the Black Swan article. I think I accidently edited an old version of the article which restored several edits. BOVINEBOY2008 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did not know about the UBL outcome and thought the change was for the country template (since a space was removed) and accidentally changed other stuff, too. All straightened out now. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Seemed easier to explain by a note than in the summary. BOVINEBOY2008 18:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not clear on the UBL outcome itself, though... is it not to be used at all? Or only with lengthy unbulleted lists? Or is it just a IE compatibility issue that hasn't been fixed? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought the consensus was to remove them. I think because it was causing technical problems on different browsers, and because the template didn't simply the formatting that much, it would be easier just to use line breaks. I may be wrong, but that is what I think most agreed with in the discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 18:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IMDb post

Apols Erik for posting on the main project page. I was waaaay too tired to be writing anything on WP. *Mental note to self* - thanks Spanglej (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cinema of" templates

Hello! A discussion about the use of {{Cinema of XXXX}} (like {{Cinema of France}}) in individual film articles has opened here. Your input would be greatly appreciated! BOVINEBOY2008 08:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What do I do with this conversation? There is a clear majority of opinion in the discussion, but there are still some who seem uninterested in what I say in my explanations. Would it be reasonable to try and write up some sort of addition to the MOS that the group can vote on? BOVINEBOY2008 19:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
At MOS:FILM#Navigation, the guidelines for succession boxes were based on a discussion, which was linked to. Maybe the same could be done for that "Cinema of" template discussion? Consensus is clear to me. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Then I will just be bold and do it. Thanks for the advice. BOVINEBOY2008 16:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If it gets reverted, we can start discussion about adding that passage. Remember that the linked discussion will wind up in the archives soon! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you be able to find offline references for The Green Hornet (2006 film)? It's posted for deletion, and I'm not finding compelling online coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Did some checking, but not much so far. :( -- Cirt (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! I might recommend a merge to the main article, then. The short film's heard-of, but I'm not sure of a stand-alone article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Suggest trying French-language news archives. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and farewell

Just dropped in to say goodbye and thanks for your kindness early on, Erik. An article I created Anthony Hayes (actor) has been vandalised by someone from inside the machine with a false accusation. I explained the situation on the talk page Talk:Anthony Hayes (actor), but the explanation has been ignored. My Satisfaction vs Aggravation pendulum has swung too far to the right. I can see no simple path to resolving this and I've got other things to spend my time on. So, thank you and good night. Kwah-LeBaire (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

Since you have not responded to me about this problem, I will keep on changing it to the right wording. Also, I'm sure you've heard of the Three revert rule. If you continue to disagree, it can be taken to Arbitration which I am happy to do. Anyways, I shall keep changing your false info until an administrator has a look. And as always, stay frosty. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bovine explained it; Warner Bros. is an American studio. I concurred with him on the film article's talk page. Please respond there. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your right, Warner Bros. is an American studio. But as I said before, about a quarter of it is Canadian, and should be left as Canadian-American. Research it. Also, if you continue to argue, and none of us agree, it is best to remove weather it is American, or Canadian for good, and finish this arguement. Thank You. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've cross-posted your explanation to the film article's talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't bother wasting my time with you anymore. For I know competly that this children's movie is Canadian-American, it is not that important to me as it is to you. Yes, I will end this argument, and act like this never happened, and I will let you leave it to just American. (which you absolutley know is incorrect). Stay American; an ignorant American. (I will NOT respond to any more of your comments, nor will I read them.) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I invited you to the film article's talk page and cross-posted your justification there. I'm still unclear about why you want to call it Canadian-American. You agree that Warner Bros. is an American studio. Why does that not mean that its films are American-produced? I understand what you are saying about partial ownership, but this does not make Legend of the Guardians an American-Canadian co-production. The article talk page discussion is still open to your comments regardless. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In addition, discussions about nationality in the opening sentence are not uncommon, especially for films that are actual co-productions, such as between an American studio and a British studio. I suggested on the film article's talk page to say "English-language film" and to mention "the American studio Warner Bros." later in the lead section. Maybe mention "the Australian visual effects company Animal Logic" as well. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Future reference of related discussion for self: Unexplained blanking. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Now that the election has concluded, I'd like to hand over the reins to you (it was more like I was keeping the seat warm...) as I'm assuming you're interested in the role as lead. If so, congrats on another term of service. With the close tallies of votes, do we plan on sticking with the agreed on five coordinators or including a sixth with Bovineboy's one less vote? Or is that something we'd like to agree on with the coordinator talk page? I'll leave the coordinator page updating up to you to setup the coordinator organization. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I will take the lead role for this term. As they say, we'll make it our best yet! :) Regarding the five candidates in close running, I think it would be good to have the sixth candidate come on board; we should not take all this too seriously. I will review with the other four anyway. I have some ideas to share, mostly to do with outreach, research, and collaboration. I know coordinator discussions can sometimes be slow-going; anything you'd suggest to expedite matters? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good! I'm up for continuing to contribute to the discussions and help with any drives or pushes to increase participation. However, my next few main projects are going to be non-film related (will still do assessment, cleanup, etc.) Discussions definitely go waiting at the talk page, we're probably going to have to continue to remind all coordinators to watchlist the page and nudge them when we want further input. I expect a lot of participation in the first few months, but we got to keep it moving along to ensure further participation. We continue to have a good bunch, so not going to be any issues there. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Old West#Fictional portrayals of the Old West.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter

The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

inre The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats

While appreciating your work trimming the article, I believe you have removed content that gave a decent impression of just how silly the entire cat show / cat owner relationship is, and how widely is held that view. Interesting thing about DYKs... for consideration of older articles, they want a 5x expansion. More, they want an interesting hook that draws a reader into reading the article itself. I ask that you now consider doing one of two things, either return enough informative content, edited to your personal satisfaction, to bring the article back up to its former 5x expansion (some 550 words), or go to the article's DYK nomination, and <s>strike it out</s> with the explanantion that the article no longer qualifies due to your improvements, as I'll be glad to let you take the credit for my embarassment at it now no longer qualifying for a DYK. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Reception" section is intended for criticism (positive and negative) of the film since secondary sources are used to provide analytic or evaluative claims. The references in the four-paragraph draft were distilled to show these claims. Each review will provide a description as if the reader knows nothing about the film, so there will be overlap. We can use such descriptions to shape the "Synopsis" section, but most of it is verbiage in relation to actual criticism. While I disagree with Steve that the article is not notable, I agree that the previous text in "Reception" was needlessly excessive. Under "Reception", we should be saying what journalists thought of the film, not repeating their superfluous descriptions of it. I don't mean to affect the article's DYK nomination, but are there not more references to provide additional background in the way of production or criticism? By the way, congratulations on becoming a coordinator! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
[ec] Your thoughts toward the reception section are valid arguments. Might you then use your editorial ability to add to the synopsis section, some of the information you removed from the reception? Specially as the reviewers all made special (usually polite) note of just how far certain owners are seen to go in pampering their show pets? And this latter symptom I have seen personally, as my ex-sister-in-law raises show cats and she meets every sterotype shared in the documentary... gormet foods... celebrity names... honeymoon suites... and more. As for the coordinatorship, thank you.... you are the first to inform me of that circumstance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't see the synopsis growing too much larger; how much more do you want? My perspective of film articles is that summaries and synopses exist to convey context for real-world coverage such as the points of criticism. I expanded the New York Times paragraph a little more, and we would benefit from additional reviews. As for pet-pampering, is that not implied in treating them better than family members? Maybe expand on that?
As for the coordinator election, the newsletter reports the results. I'll announce it on WT:FILM this weekend. Make sure you watchlist WT:FILMC! I suggested appointing Bovineboy2008. Let me know any ideas you may have; I think you can help with outreach, especially with editors who create new articles. There's a recent-changes option somewhere (tag: movies, I think) that can show these articles pop up. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Google News Search shows additional reviews that are behind paywalls. We can expand on points of criticism with these reviews. Times like these, I miss my subscription-only database access... Erik (talk | contribs) 17:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no such access myself. Where and how is it obtained? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Cirt has access to such databases, which are available through public libraries and university libraries. Unfortunately, I don't get to go to the library often... not too compelling to go out of my way to do research on a documentary about show cats! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
And too, many local public libraries, due to demand on the servers, have extreme limits on how much time may be spent researching. And I admit, I was myself a bit surprised to find this cat documentary having a full-on NYT review. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you view the Show Cats video on this and see if there is anything to include? Any kind of reasonable insight (e.g., no "Best documentary I've ever done") that we could mention? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I\ll take a look. Perhaps worth including is that Show Cats and Show Cattle were made a "show animals" duet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hail to the Chief

Having just seen the news, I wish to extend my congratulations. WikiProject Films is lucky to have you. Best wishes, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! If you want to share any ideas, take a look at the agenda at WP:FILMC. It's old, and I will probably update it, but it suggested a variety of tasks. I think that we should avoid more bureaucracy and try to promote outreach and collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Director templates

Why should the years not be seperated? There should be consistency with the templates, your edits to not make any sense.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason for separating films by decade is for when a director has 30+ films and it is tough for the reader to navigate a single group of titles. If there are less films, there is not a challenge there. Are you telling me that Template:John Curran looks better like this? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Lets stop the madness and discuss. I can agree with you on John Curran but some directors have films over three or four decades and it makes it easier.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The breakdown by decade is purely arbitrary. The point of the breakdown is to make navigation easier. That's why I'm arguing for smaller bodies of work, breakdown is not necessary. The approach taken for a director with 50 films should not be taken with a director with 5 films. I have no interest in avoiding breakdown by decade for larger bodies; the small ones concern me. Let's discuss at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Might want to read this buddy: Wikipedia:Canvassing. Not allowed to contact Koavf.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And your comment on there sounds like I am a blatant vandal and need to be watched with every edit I make.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Koavf was already involved in undoing the excessive breakdown. The editor was not uninvolved in the back-and-forth editing of the director templates. You're right, though, that I should have informed you about the discussion when I started it in the first place. I assumed that you were unwilling to discuss the matter, having reverted others' edits to the director templates without comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

This is days late but congrats on the your coordinator election. Whether we are in agreement or butting heads I know that you have the best interests of the fiilmproject (and the rest of Wikipedia) at heart. Best wishes in the year ahead and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sure we all get carried away when editing as if it's the most important task in the world. I have to check myself sometimes. I try to make the overall goal to be improved collaboration and continued growth. If you have any ideas on getting people involved or growing articles better, I'm open to them. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 22:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The dictatorship continues! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Back by popular demand. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what they all say :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
How dare you question the people's wishes! To the gulag with you! Erik (talk | contribs) 00:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Hi, Erik. I was wondering if you could review some of the sources I added on the talk page of Chain Saw, when you have some time. They seemed interesting and useful to me.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of them look decent, but be aware of papers from school, like this one, which is not reliable. According to WP:RS, reliable papers from a school environment are those that are peer reviewed (especially published as such) or finished Ph.D dissertations. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I see, thanks Erik.--The Taerkasten (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, if you have time, I've tried to start an interpretations subsection in my user page, but could probably use some references for it. I'm not really sure how to start it either, so if you have some tips, I'd appreciate it. I'll only really work on this after the main article reaches FA, working on that for over 2 years now.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds similar to my Interpretations of Fight Club article, which is pretty incomplete. (See the talk page for the monster list of references.) What you could do is add content to that sub-article and create a summary section at the main film article that points to it, like I have at Fight Club (film). I think that would indicate a different kind of completeness; the article about the film has a comprehensive overview, but the specific sub-topic of critically analyzing the film is a separate beast to tackle. To actually put together the sub-article, I recommend note-taking. Write down the key points as you read a piece of critical analysis (noting page numbers) and try to provide a small summary for the reader. I also recommend being diverse with choosing your pieces at the beginning. With the Fight Club example, I chose negative-sounding pieces by accident, and the article has received some criticism for having a negative POV (even though I love the film, go figure). That's all I can offer; critical analysis is the toughest sub-topic for any of us to tackle, in terms of research and comprehension and summarization. You may want to ask Steve, who wrote up a lot of critical analysis at American Beauty (film), for suggestions. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Erik. When I started working on Chain Saw two and a half years ago, I had absolutely no idea the film was so significant. My main concern now is for the main article to reach FA, then I'll start piling together references and working on the Interpretations.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering, since the second image in the article (in the Release section) doesn't have alt text, if you could suggest what to say? I'm no good with alt text. Thanks, --The Taerkasten (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You do not have to be detailed with it. Before, WP:ALT said to detail images in depth, but that's not necessary. I would just say, "Screenshot of the white-on-black story background text scrolled in the film's opening." Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thanks Erik.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you make of [1] this reference? It seems quite detailed in exploring the themes of the film. I'd like to use it for the future interpretations article.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Definitely looks usable! Erik (talk | contribs) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought so too, it'll definitely help my interpretations article.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm at a standstill now. I don't know whether to nominate it for FA or not. I guess I'm finding the journey towards FA far too exciting, because I think when it gets there, then what is there left to do? --The Taerkasten (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I felt the same way when I finally got Fight Club (film) promoted. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll nominate it soon, only I don't want it to be its 4th? failed nomination.--The Taerkasten (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Film cleanup

Hi Erik - I've added a section on the co-ordinators page here. Input welcome. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A word with mr. troll alert

Say listen, how about actually assisting to better an article for a change? Honking the clown alarm about trolls did not save the Harry Potter film article from being corrected, to listing both titles near each other, which was all I wanted. And I am not the only one... but the only one with the courage, apparently. I want you to know I resent your accusation that I am a "troll".76.195.86.50 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you propose? That the film article should be Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) a.k.a. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film)? The article's lead sentence mentions both titles, and we surely cannot repeat both forms throughout the article. There's no need to be hostile as you have been on two talk pages as if you have been personally wronged. What matters is that both titles are at least noted and that the topic is properly discussed in detail. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For that I apologize--I see that the article about the film does list the title in a proper way. Absolutely not, the alias titles do not need to be listed the same way throughout! That's as bad as leaving alias titles to one side. That was never my proposition, and I never suggested it.

You cannot believe the beatings I've gotten at the article for the original novel, over this issue. You know, it makes no matter to me about ego or errors. With no ego to speak of, I can be pretty stupid. However, there is no argument against a valid and proper point of order. In any case, please accept my apology.76.195.86.50 (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding aggregate film review scores

Out of curiosity what is the threshold of number of reviews a site should have before adding it to an article about an unreleased film? Or should we just wait until the film is released before adding such scores? Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on my limited statistical knowledge, 30 is my preference for sample size (see this). I think after 30, the score is not going to vary too much. In contrast, a film can be 100% with 6 reviews and drop pretty abruptly from there. We could also depend on when Rotten Tomatoes makes available the "critics' consensus" for a film, though I'm not sure what their own threshold is. I think in general, the day of the film's release (or week if the film is being screened to a lot of critics before the opening) would be appropriate. For example, at Black Swan (film), I haven't included RT in the article body since there's 16 reviews and no critics' consensus. I've used other sources to reflect its reception at the festival screenings. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine either 30 or waiting until RT makes their consensus. Also is that 30 reviews or 30 top critic reviews? Maybe we should open this up to a project wide discussion if no project guideline exists.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I meant 30 reviews in general, and I think that threshold is quickly crossed around the time of release. I don't think most counts of top critics exceed 30-40 per film anyway. If you want to start a discussion about it, go ahead. I don't find the issue definite or pressing enough to matter. It's not hugely detrimental to have a statement like what was at Red; it is updated eventually to be more accurate. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I'll will just keep this in mind for my own edits unless it becomes a bigger issue. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry

Hey! Thanks for your comments regarding the film and how to improve it. I am not sure how to make a booklist/reference list for books / chapters regarding the film, but it's a great idea and those are some really useful links that I could also incorporate into the themes section (especially bits lacking in sources). I haven't been editing on Wikipedia for a long time so I'm not sure how to make a book reference list, but when I learn I would be happy to do it! Thanks so much, Ashton 29 (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Check out the Featured Article American Beauty (film), which uses books and journals. WP:NOTES is a helpful read, too. The gist of it is this: publications where multiple pages are referenced are fully identified in a "References" section, usually using the {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} templates. An example is the following:
  • Rigney, Melissa (2008). "Brandon Goes to Hollywood: Boys Don't Cry and the Transgender Body in Film". In Driver, Susan (ed.). Queer Youth Cultures. SUNY Press. ISBN 0791473384. (usually include full set of page numbers as well; let's say it's 100–105 pages here)
Above the "References" section is a "Notes" section (just a renaming of your current "References" section). When you write a footnote referencing page 100 from the above publication, you would write <ref>Rigney 2008, p. 100</ref>. When readers see this footnote in the "Notes" section, they know to look up the source reference in the "References" section. The article for American Beauty uses {{Harvnb}} templates, which means that it shows the regular footnote details and provides a link that when clicked, jumps to the reference. You do not have to include the coverage for the article to be a Good Article, but since one of the Featured Article criteria is comprehensiveness, it is recommended to eventually include that coverage. Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Film Project Portal

Hi, I just joined the WikiProject:Films list. I figured I would stop in and introduce myself to you since you are the Project Coordinator. I'm Rob Mauro, and hope to contribute to cleaning up, expanding or correcting the articles on equipment (notably, grip equipment), and some of the production positions. I'm the Line Producer and Gaffer for Retro Film Studios (production company behind Star Trek: New Voyages) and hope to be able to help out in those areas where I have experience. Let me know if there's anywhere else I can help out (except of course, on the STP2 related pages). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rob! It's a pleasure to meet you. I'm not the only coordinator; there are six of us, currently talking about cleanup tasks at WT:FILMC. It would be great if you could help out with articles on equipment and production positions! It's usually the individual films that get a lot of attention among project members, so it is good to know that the technical topics are getting much-needed attention. What articles in particular have you developed? We could use a section at MOS:FILM#Filmmaking technology for any guidelines on writing such articles. Also, if you come across certain articles that you may not have time to build, you could add "Further reading" sections to host any good print references you know so readers can follow them. I'm less sure about external links since they've been used for promotion. Unlike individual film articles, I think it's more realistic for an equipment article to exist without having external links. In any case, we always have discussions going on at WT:FILM, and you're welcome to read them and participate. Welcome to the WikiProject! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
As of yet, my contributions in this area have been minor edits on grip equipment, though I do plan on expanding my contributions. I'll take a look at MOS:FILM#Filmmaking technology and provide my input as soon as I can. As for external links, I generally agree (I know it may seem I added external links to the C-Stand article, but in actuality, I moved a list of links in the article to an External Links section, as though I am not too sure how appropriate I still think that is, it was definitely less appropriate as part of the article body). That too is something I'd love to discuss with everyone, as I dont believe equipment pages should be used as advertising portals for equipment manufacturers. Off to work for a bit... -Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
On to contributions in this area. I have contributed to a Grip Guide for the Grip/Electric team of Retro Film Studios. It explains virtually every piece of commonly used grip equipment found in the grip and electric departments. I'll be using that as a basis for the various related equipment on Wikipedia, as well as some of the references we used. We (largely own of my crew members) wrote a PA book that delves pretty deeply into equipment, which I can use in part. Any information we use will be of course donated to the public domain. The parts we cannot use are parts that Harry Box and one other expert in this area were kind enough to allow us to freely use in our internal stuff, but that is easy to separate, as we gave them full attribution for every section we re-used.
Some things in this vein, I am not sure how to handle. For instance, the Mole-Richardson page needs cites/sources. My work experience, as well as my experience in researching numerous behind the scenes related stuff (many old shows using the same equipment they sell or have revided today) and numerous discussions with people who have been in the industry for decades; all indicate the prominence of Mole Richardson equipment, the ridiculous reliability of their equipment (when we were filming an indoor scene for "Buck Rogers Begins", it was pouring out, but we needed daylight. We had to burn a Mole 1K in the rain for almost 8 hours straight - it didnt seem to care in the least bit... not too bad for a lamp nearly as old as I am), and numerous stories about the company itself - which brings the issue: where to find reliable sources for the article. So much of the behind-the-scenes stuff in TV and movie production seems "anecdotal" or word of mouth. It's like asking any Gaffer what their preferred light is. Every one I have asked will say one or both of (a) Mole's for reliability and ease of maintenance, or (b) Arri's for flexibility in mounting options (addtl mounting hole in stirrup) and barn door safety clip that works (with Mole's being their first choice still if it comes to buying a reliable package). <-- Both anecdotal and word of mouth, yet very relevant to every Gaffer to be or anyone interested in what they do, with what equipment and why they choose such.
Anyway, I'm off to add some references to a couple articles. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ay, there's the rub... professionals have gotten upset at Wikipedia when their shared knowledge is removed due to lack of citation. For Wikipedia, it's not enough that you know it to be true, it needs to be published somewhere to be included. If you are looking for references, are there not any film equipment websites that discuss the trade? The references do not need to be print publications. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but the problem those run into are the following... people judge them as fitting one or more of the following categories: blog, forum, not-an-expert (and few long time, well know gaffers and DPs actually seem to publish anything about the more "mundane" stuff like this), etc. There are a few print publications that are decent (books), but those primarily end up being the two major ones that most Gaffers and DPs swear by: The Set Lighting Technician Handbook (Box), and The Grip Book (Uva). Someplace, there is a free publication online that I think I can reference (by an expert in the field)... I'm shooting an email to my Key Grip tonight to ask him to send me the link again.
These are the sad things about such specialty topics. Those in the industry know the stuff as sure as night is dark, but that's not the world as a whole... stumbling us back into the world of "citation needed" :-)
The gobo article needs LOTS of work - it's a great article on a not widely used (anymore) meaning. Gobo, nowadays, in virtually every book and per every gaffer and dp I've talked to, seems to refer to just about anything between a lamp (flag, net, silk, etc) and it's mount (stand, pin, etc). ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're interested, here's a link [2] to the last thing I lit... lotsa fun recreating Star Trek TOS' "sell color TVs by using lotsa color" lighting look. My cellphone cam doesnt do it (or the hard work of my lighting team) justice sadly. If the link is inappropriate on a talk page, feel free to remove it. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

get a mirror

You disrespected everyone whose opinion you ignored, Erik. You might consider finding a good mirror and learning how it's used. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, we were having a constructive discussion about the infobox, but you soon made this comment about "[handling] it without special 'guidance' from the same group that produced the current fiasco". You then made it more disrespectful with this comment. After that, I did not find our exchange to be conducive any longer, and I found my decision reinforced by your response to PC78. That's why I worked with Betty instead; she is willing to listen, and I appreciate her for that. I actually thought you had a couple of valid points. I'm willing to have my predictions challenged, but it's hard to respond to feedback mixed up in rudeness toward me: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Discussions should be focused on the topics at hand, and I was uncomfortable with the animosity you were directing at me. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
We were not having a constructive discussion the moment you got "bold" and decided to impose your minority view on everyone else, not a single one of whom agreed with you. Since when does the outlier (you) attempt to define the consensus? Recall that Betty laid out three options and allowed everyone to comment on them, including you. Because we respect the process, no changes were made at that time. But you don't have the same respect for others, do you -- and you made it clear.
So, please, explain away your high-handed, solipsistic, selfish nonsense however you want. We all got a whiff and it smells pretty bad. I might add that on the merits you don't have a leg to stand on, so you've just about got the trifecta of malfeasance: wrong, disrespectful, and stubborn. I look forward to your apology to the group for disrespecting their efforts and opinions. Until then, I'll be happy to continue pointing out your mistake. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you telling me that you are justified in the way you are speaking to me right now? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Legend of the Guardians

Hi there, yes I have made changes to the plot summary, but I wasn't vandalizeing it... I just edited it, and added more detail. So I don't know what your going on about. I also added a new image. If you have looked on the discussion page, I said that someone can change it back to the other image if they prefer it not to stay. So what are you talking about? thanks Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay then! I have see this movie, so I know what happens and everything, so could you possibly put my changes back? :) thanks Monkeys 9711 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Narnia

Hey this is just a heads up. I am not sure of how the itatic title thing works. But a lot of Chronicles of Narnia related articles haven't responded to being italic on their title names yet. − Jhenderson 777 20:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it had to do with the number of characters in the article title. I "forced" the italics by adding italic title = force to the bottom of the infobox. See MOS:FILM#Article italics for more. Let me know if any other articles need addressing! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
For non-film articles, I was not sure if other infoboxes had an italic title field with a "force" parameter, so I added DISPLAYTITLE. (I did this for the soundtrack and video game articles.) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Just curious to know. Does the preview portion of the article actually show it working when placing that there. − Jhenderson 777 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it does. If you need to test the addition of italics, just go ahead and make the edit. If it does not work, you can revert yourself. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There's also the question of how to do it when you shouldn't use it on the whole title, for example when I tried to do it on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhenderson777 (talk • contribs) 17:07, October 18, 2010
You're right that the normal approach would not work there. It requires the addition of DISPLAYTITLE, and DISPLAYTITLE needs to be placed after the film infobox so it can override the infobox's italics coding (which is not working for that title). I also updated the guidelines to explain this better. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Hobbit film project

I noticed the infobox is back, are you okay with this? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I've removed it. While there was a greenlight, there seems to be turmoil with PJ saying he was moving production out of New Zealand, then the unions saying they'll end the boycott. We can write about these events, but it's still too soon to claim an actual film out of the current mess. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jedi

Your suggestions were really good...I hope you'll check out my reasoning for sticking to the films almost 100% for citations here. This article does not need to be over-referenced. Suggestions about the 'real-world' impact of the Jedi characters belongs in another article, not here.75.21.144.68 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Jedi. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Brute Man

Hey Erik. Thanks much for your edits recently to The Brute Man. As you probably saw, I've nominated it for GAN. I'm not sure if you get involved with the review process all that often or not, but since it appears you've been looking over the article a bit over the last couple days, I thought I'd check if maybe you'd like to conduct the review? If not, no biggie, just checking. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 01:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually considering it because it looked like such a shoo-in. :) I won't be able to do it tonight, and I have a full day tomorrow. Maybe Sunday, if someone else doesn't beat me to it? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no rush; I'm sort of used to GA noms lingering in the backlog for weeks or months at a time, so whenever you get around to it would be absolutely fine. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 21:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

At FAC

  • Thanks for the heads-up! I'm busy this weekend, so you may need to nudge me a little later if I don't get to it. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think your comments would be useful to the FAC, which seems to fluctuate from near-passing to just about failing, I dunno about consensus. Images now seem to be a problem.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I only saw this now. I haven't had time to read the article closely (and I wind up doing other sporadic edits instead). I'll try to weigh in when I can, but I don't usually have a real block of time during the week. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul

Sorry for getting back to you on this, I forgot about it yesterday and remembered in the middle of work today. I was also thinking of something along the lines of WP:MIL's page. The templates provide a more inviting structure, especially with the tabs. I'm not that creative, so hopefully someone who specializes in user page/project page layouts would be willing to take a stab at it. Maybe a few different mockups would allow members to choose a favorite. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for results, I've definitely been slacking (I think the Tag & Assess was the biggest thing that was completed, and that wasn't even completed fully...) It would be a good idea to get everyone's opinion on the main page change so all potential changes could be incorporated (similar to the bot request page you started). I'm fine with moving the task forces to the side, as they unfortunately aren't really being used to their potential. Simplifying the main page along with removing/merging departments would make it easier to manage and encourage more participation in a few central areas. I would even welcome a project goal of a set number of FA/GAs, but I'm sure we don't need to be as ambitious as WP:MILHIST (yet). I actually have a statistical breakdown of our spotlight articles regarding genre, country, box office, and RT rating (simplified, just to see the diversity of what our project likes to work on) which I plan to go over in this month's newsletter. That will hopefully shed some light on our strong points as well as articles that we need to work on to provide model articles for new editors. Tied in with the talk page references lists, I think we should also create a guide/learning area for how to properly research and expand various type of film articles, providing the best examples we have from the Spotlight articles to encourage best practices (Which I guess is basically WP:MILHIST's Academy. It seems they have thought of everything in advance before we do, but their layout works. Heck, it's not like we're stealing their project's progress, as their structure is set up to help Wikipedia to grow and improve. Since that is all of our goal here, all WikiProjects should follow suit, and I think we've gotten a strong start on that.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehrams2020 (talk • contribs) 21:13, October 22, 2010
Yeah, I went to my watchlist, and it was bombarded with page moves. I'm glad to see there wasn't too many problems with the moves. I wouldn't say the era's over yet, I'm thinking the recent suggested changes to the main page, the new bot, open coordinator tasks, and the continued overall improvement is bringing in the new era. It's definitely continuing to improve beyond the project's organization when I first joined in 2006. It will be interesting to see the state of the project in another 4-5 years. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent revert

Your recent revert probably should have been done manually with an edit summary instead of with the rollback feature. Rollback should only be used for vandalism and other uses listed here. Otherwise, you should AGF and provide an explanation of why you reverted the edit. Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cast tables

Question about the 'floating' cast table you suggested. How would I make one appear like this in an article? Thanks. Mike Allen 00:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Use Apt Pupil (film) as the template. It uses four columns, so cut off the actor/role listing halfway through and continue in the additional two columns. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Circus edits

Your advocacy of the removal of the current events info from the article was a mistake, Erik. You allowed several newer editors with a less than complete understanding of wiki policy to further cement that lack of understanding. Not your finest hour. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack, were there other editors who supported your viewpoint? I reviewed the longevity of the other editors involved in the discussions on the film article's talk page and on the noticeboard, and most of them were "older" than you, if you want to use editor-age as criteria. If you feel like the situation is not a flash in the pan, then what about a separate article for the situation? After all, it is only tangential to the film. Happy editing. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And a question...

Hey Erik. Thanks so much for your review of The Brute Man! I'm not used to GAN reviews going so quickly! I also had a question for you on an unrelated film-related article I am working on. I've been working on Charles B. Pierce and am nearing completion on it, but there was one element of the article I wasn't sure whether should be added or not. Basically, this is an independent filmmaker who often works with low budgets. As a result, he often has a bit of a reputation for making schlock and his movies sometimes get bad reviews. Now, it's not like an Ed Wood kind of deal where he's universally known for his bad films, but he does often get bad reviews. What I'm wondering is should I be including that criticism in the article when I talk about his individual movies? My original thought was it was more appropriate to include those criticisms in the individual articles about his films. Or, should I include some of the criticism of Pierce's direction/technical elements in this article. Let me know what you think. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! You were lucky I was looking at the recent changes when you added the GAN template to the talk page. Made me curious about the shape of the article, and I could tell it was a shoo-in! I don't really review GA nominees otherwise. To answer your question, I think it is acceptable to include criticism about individual films if the criticism is collective. If you cite one reviewer panning one of his films in the filmmaker's article, it's not a strong indicator of consensus toward the film. Collective criticism (critics as a whole) and individual reviews can belong at an individual film article. Let me know if that makes sense! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me, thanks Erik! And by the way, if I can ever be of any more help with WikiProject Films, let me know. I'm a film lover and I'd like to get more involved with film articles! — Hunter Kahn 13:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You are already an asset for the WikiProject and Wikipedia as a whole with writing articles like The Brute Man and Tender Mercies. Just keep writing articles about films you love. If you want to narrow that down, then there are a couple of categories you could explore. One category is recent films, such as those who will likely contend for awards. The King's Speech (film) is one example; I'm doing Black Swan (film) but need to update it. Such articles will probably have a high readership during awards season. The other category is core films, which are films that "deserve" a well-written article, like Citizen Kane and so forth. They can be a challenge to write, but for some people, it would be "better" than having all the Friday the 13th films' articles be Featured Articles. I think it works to improve both categories. You could also help other editors at WT:FILM when they ask questions. I'm personally working on research, providing references on film articles' talk pages like at Talk:Starship Troopers (film)/references. I also plan to do some outreach as seen at User:Erik/Outreach because we could always use more helping hands! Do whatever you would feel most comfortable doing. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

PROGRAM ALERT-Hi again. I wanted to make you aware of a new program that began last night on Turner Classic Movies. It is entitled "Moguls & Movie Stars" and follows the history of film form the late 1800's to the late 1960's. The first episode was very impressive - lots of detail, pics and clips. Most notable were strikingly cleaned up and sharp prints of some of the famous Edison and Méliès shorts. Here is a link for more info [3]. It is a seven part series with new episodes airing on Monday nights and then repeats occur several times through the rest of the week. If this doesn't fit your schedule I am sure that it will be released on DVD or will be available on the net eventually. Well worth viewing if you are interested. MarnetteD | Talk 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your input may be of help

A question about awards in the lead of articles came up today here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Phrase .22Academy Award-winning.22 in article lead. While I gave them an answer based on what I knew and found my info is probably not complete. If you have a moment you might post a more accurate answer to the question than I have. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Research for It's a Wonderful Life

Hi Erik, I perfectly understand, but the cite is still incorrectly outputted because the cite template is malformed. FWiW, I have already added the refs to the article, using the MLA style guide. Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For two months, I petitioned the citation designer to redo the template to no avail. He finally told me to, "shove it! If you don't like the template, don't use it." Every effort afterward to redraw the templates was met with the same response. I can actually write the template entries in such a way to correct the errors in second author, first edition, publishing location, date and so on, but it takes so much computer input that I find it is faster and more efficient to simply write out the citation or bibliographic notation in "scratch" cataloging, exactly the same thing that happens in every reference library when the CIP (Cataloging in Progress) parameters are not set properly. To allay your fears that I am a luddite, I had been a librarian for over 30 years and had pioneered the use of MARC record electronic templating, but the templates were exactly written and did not have the inherent catastrophic errors built into the Wiki cite templates. The original designer apparently used the American Psychological Association (APA) Style Guide but made some alterations that changed even this format. Both the Modern Language Association (MLA) and APA guides are used in the Social Sciences but the MLA is predominately used in popular works while APA is a more academic convention. In many ways, the APA guide is a simplified form that I find is clumsy in that it links publishing date to the author and makes no accommodations for additional editions, elaboration of print or non-print sources, change of publishing or other cataloging fields. The short answer is that the Wiki template designers refuse to change their templates, editors have converted then on their own if they prefer a template system, other editors like myself use an alternate method for reference sourcing. It still falls into the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome that I feel cripples the cite template system when neophytes or unskilled users employ templates. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Black Swan distribution

It might be a moot point now that only studio is being listed, but in the quote from the article you referenced (http://www.webcitation.org/5siEvxbDI), Cross Creek and Fox Searchlight are mentioned as the final financiers to join the project, not as distributors. In funding the project, Fox Searchlight also acquired distribution rights. Cross Creek do not distribute films anywhere in the world; the reference to 'in association with Fox Searchlight' is because the two companies collaborated in their work as financiers. It is not unusual for production companies who are not distributing a film to be given the 'presents' credit; see the recent poster for Fair Game, where production companies River Road and Participant share the credit with distributor Summit Entertainment. --Krevans (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I had misread the Los Angeles Times citation; I thought it said both Fox Searchlight and Cross Creek were high off their distribution of The Wrestler. I realize now that it was referring to Fox Searchlight only. In any case, do you think we need to use the "studio" field? As a film infobox, it should be an overview of the film, and I'm wary of indiscriminately listing companies in the infobox. The overarching company related to the film, to me, would be Fox Searchlight Pictures as distributor. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Almost any film could have four or five companies listed in the studio infobox if every company involved in financing the project were listed, but that does seem like overkill for an infobox. The separate "studio" field is probably only necessary for totally independent projects made without major studio money. I really think there should be better guidelines for the field on the film infobox page.--Krevans (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Need help

There's a user over at the 2012 and beyond in film article that wants to add sections to the page that cover films with no confirmed release dates. I say they shouldn't be on there, and have been reverting the edits. The user tries to make his case here. Can you weigh in on this?-5- (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I weighed in. Feel free to ask WT:FILM for additional input, but when notifying people, please try to keep it neutral. Let them review the viewpoints in the discussion when they get there. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Darkness2005

That's a sad outcome, I hope he comes back; but thank you for taking action, it was long overdue.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if my hope that Darkness2005 comes back has been fulfilled? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Doppelgänger (1969 film)

Project renaming

Where are we at with the renaming of WikiProject Film? I did some page moves yesterday, are we all sorted with the rest now? PC78 (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories and templates. It looks like you're removing some categories, though? Why not submit a batch rename at WP:CFDS, and (I think) they'll simultaneously remove the old categories and add the new ones? There are a few templates to be renamed as well, and we'd need to go through the WP:RM channel. (Off the topic, regarding italics in article titles, I had to fix eXistenZ last night with a specific use of DISPLAYTITLE. Might be worth identifying film articles that use the film infobox and the {{lowercase}} template for fixing, since one cancels the other out, depending on placement.) Erik (talk | contribs) 11:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the lowercase titles. There weren't that many to be honest. PC78 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pricer1980 sock?

Do you think User:Ben-Bopper could be Pricer1980? Mike Allen 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspected this in the past, and I'm reviewing his recent contributions. This is in line with the IP sockpuppets' false claims of TriStar being involved. I'm wondering if we should do a checkuser, or if that would even help. Might be that Pricer1980 edited on a different IP in the past than Ben-Bopper. Let's keep an eye on the edits. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Mike, it seems very likely that Ben is a sockpuppet; the company-related edits to film articles are way too similar. I contacted JohnCD here for advice. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike, if you're interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pricer1980. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlist the page, maybe a checkuser will be performed and find some other sleepers. I'm also about to watchlist a lot of the "List of [company] films" articles. This is getting kind of crazy... Mike Allen 01:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of this IP's sudden editing habit? 222.153.238.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Mike Allen 02:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PR request

If you have any time, I'd appreciate your thoughts on Star Trek IV so far before I make the final push for FA-readiness (Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/archive1). Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Waking Ned poster update

Hello Erik. I hope that your wikibreak is going well. Earlier this year you worked on getting a poster pic for our Waking Ned page that did not use the US title. Tonight I just came across this pic [4] at IMDb. I don't know if it will be possible to add it but I thought I would make you aware of it just in case. I apologize for saddling you with this when you return but I am a technoignoramus and have no idea how to upload pics or give them all of the rationales that are required to be used here at wikiP. Best wishes and I look forward to your return. MarnetteD | Talk 03:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter

The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Brute Man image

Hey Erik. I added a new fair use image to The Brute Man, and wanted to run it by you since you did the GAN review. It's the one under the MST3K section. I feel it more than qualifies for fair use because its absense would be detrimental to the understanding of readers who are not familiar with the show Mystery Science Theater 3000, and a simple description of the show (with characters watching the film) doesn't convey the understanding as well as seeing it does. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Help

I would like more opinions on this AFD if you don't mind. − Jhenderson 777 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve the article a little bit. It's a start. ;) − Jhenderson 777 16:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Darren Aronofsky films

GA and FA I noticed that you've been the main contributor to The Fountain and Black Swan (film) and I wanted to know if you are interested in collaborating to make the former FA-class and work on the latter for GA whenever the dust settles and it's stable. If so, please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm too touch-and-go to be able to help these days, unfortunately. It would be great to see The Fountain become a Featured Article, though! On its talk page, there's a link to the references sub-page which you can use for building toward FA status. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Peer review/The Fountain/archive2 Thanks, Erik. Please e-mail that chapter to me (the "M" in my signature.) For what it's worth, I'm trying to get a hold of the picture book/screenplay to see if that has anything useful and if you're interested in the commentary that Aronofsky self-released, you can find it all over the place--I downloaded it when it was first released and I can get it to you if you're interested. Also, thanks for the heads-up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Multimedia; I might just make a clip for this. Needless to say, if this ends up FA, it will mostly be due to your hard work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will have to email you the PDF later. Internet connection's very slow for me (basically a big reason why I haven't contributed much in the past month). Regarding the screenplay book, I am pretty positive that it does not have anything of value for the article. I sought it out when I first read about it. It's basically the screenplay and pictures, which is why I never used it in the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Still serious narrative problems

Erik, would you mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? We need an uninvolved editor with good experience regarding Wikipedia film articles weighing in. I always respect your opinion on such topics, whether you agree with me or not.

Oh, and I forgot to say months ago, "Welcome back." Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22. :) I'm not quite back, though my activity is up just a little. Regarding Titanic, I think DocKino has some points, even though the overall discussion is rather impolite. What he is saying is that the last two paragraphs of "Writing and inspiration" are more related to filming. There is a lot of information in that section, and it may help to reorder it. For example, there could be a "Conception" section that would basically combine the inspiration and the writing. For the last three paragraphs starting with "Cameron met with 20th Century Fox", perhaps it could be a "Development and pre-production" subsection? These changes could be a start, at least. As for the Mir item, I am okay with mentioning Sagalevich's cameo. Identifying his relationship with the Mir answers readers' question of why he's relevant without having to leave the film article. How these suggestions help. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Erik. If you haven't already, I'll mention your take on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Good luck! I don't want to get caught up in the discussion, but let me know if you need additional input about other parts of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ding dong

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film seems to be building up requests with no replies. Please be so kind as to provided comments to those requests. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Uzma! I've taken some time to provide some comments to the various threads at the talk page. A little busy this week; hope you understand that! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings of the season to you and yours!

Happy Holidays, Erik!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: WebCite

Thanks for the advice! I actually just discovered and started using WebCite recently, after running into some linkrot problems. It definitely comes in handy. — Hunter Kahn 21:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Black Swan tip

Thanks I probably won't have the drive to do much on that article, but the heads-up is nice. Also, I just moved and have yet to get home Internet access, so my contributions have been spotty lately. The Fountain is still a priority, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Into Temptation (film)

Hey Erik, it's Hunter Kahn. I previously nominated Into Temptation (film) for FA, but it failed due to inactivity after it failed to generate many reviews of either support or oppose. The FA delegate suggested I try to get some of the film-oriented editors involved before bringing it back to FAC. I wonder if perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at it some time soon, before I bring it back to FAC (which I would expect to happen in a week or two, maybe), with the hopes that you might weigh in then? It's a relatively short article, but if you are too busy, it's no biggie. Let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn 04:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool

Hi!

I noticed that you added the Article Feedback Tool pilot to American Beauty (film). I'm glad that you're enthusiastic about the feature. However, we have a set of criteria being used to determine which articles can be added to the pilot. Unfortunately, American Beauty does not fit the profile, so I have removed the category from the article.

We have a work group to discuss the tool and the project. You can join it here.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! I only noticed the sparse number of articles in the category after I added American Beauty (after I saw it being used at True Grit). I looked at your link but could not find the set of criteria. Can you link me more directly? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing! You can find the discussion of the criteria here.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a MediaWiki account, but would Season of the Witch (2011 film) be a candidate? The film is coming out this weekend, and there's been little coverage about it so far. It should experience a burst of coverage in regard to production and reception in the ensuing weeks. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Something happened between then and now because that article is pretty complete. Probably would have been a good idea, though.
You can easily make an account at MediWiki.org, btw. In fact, if your account is global, you've already got one. Thanks for the suggestion, though.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I have a Wikimedia account that's global. This one isn't, unfortunately. And yes, I thought it would be a good candidate, but I kept working on it the past few days. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik/Archive_22&oldid=1083589267"