User talk:Hoverfish/Archive 3

Archives

Current 2014-18 Archive 2009-13 Archive 2008/10 Archive 2007-2 Archive 2007-1 Archive 2006/7-2 Archive 2006/7-1 Archive 2006-2 Archive 2006-1 Archive

Raye Makhfi

Hi! Thanks for expanding this horrible stub I created. Its a great film, and if you haven't already, you should see it :) - Francis Tyers · 08:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your helps on Raye makhfi. Take care. Sangak 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP Films talk

No problem! Next time, just click on the dates in the history section to see when exactly something you didn't want was put, then fix it. --Crzycheetah 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Query about Infoboxes

Hi Hoverfish, Do you know where I would start if I wanted to suggest adding IMDB links to actor infoboxes? It seems like it would be a lot of help. I don't know how to do it myself. Cott12 Talk 13:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Category ordering

Is there a guideline about how cats should be ordered? I thought it was alphabetical. Feel free to respond here, if you want. — WiseKwai 01:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your work, too. — WiseKwai 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Film/novel cats

Hi there Fish! My opinion is that the article should not have a book category if it's only about the film. Only the Category:Films based on books sub-cat should be used if a book is the source (and one hopes the book has its own article in that case). If the article does describe both the book and film, it seems logical to either split it, or if it's not big enough, go ahead and use both film and book cats. HTH, Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [1] futurebird 23:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MusicLovers.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MusicLovers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CfD

Thanks for pointing it out to me, I would have never known. I don't think the category should be kept, it doesn't seem to link the lists well. Plus, that's what lists of films is for. For the lists, I'm half and half on which ones should be deleted and which ones should be kept. Should be deleted:

• List of films involving amputees - convert to cat
• List of films in which an attempt is made to guess a password
• List of films featuring automobile racing - should be converted into cats based on type of car race
• List of films featuring blind characters - what a mess!
• List of films involving food - too broad
• List of films featuring independent body parts
• List of films which end in protagonist's death
• List of films with TV shows and other films in them
• List of films with a twist ending

Should be kept:

• List of athletes in film
• List of biker films
• List of computer-related films - needs cleanup
• List of films with disabled protagonists - needs cleanup
• List of films that most frequently use the word "f**k" (I censor) - good references, interesting, wonder if it could ever reach FA?
• List of films featuring May-December romances
• List of films featuring mental illness
• List of films featuring Mini cars
• Skyscrapers in film
• The Statue of Liberty in popular culture - don't even see why this was put up for deletion
• List of films featuring trains

Split into more defined lists:

• List of films by gory death scene
• List of films by crash scene

Sorry for clogging up your page, but what do you think of the lists? I'm going off to vote in favor of the ones listed here, I'm sure the ones that will be deleted will have enough non-film users against them. --Nehrams2020 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Yes, I abhor the use of infoboxes - they are the equivalent of CliffsNotes [2] for those who are too lazy to read a book. However, you will note I did not remove the one you added to my article about Track the Man Down, as I accept them as an unfortunate evil, although I never will include them in an article I create.

However, if an infobox is going to contain links to other sites, then why include them in an "External links" section as well? What purpose is served by having these redundancies?

I don't understand your statement "the alphabetical sorting of categories happens automacally [sic] as the title reads. The only use for the sortkey in categories is when the title starts with an article (English or other)." Could you please clarify what you're trying to say?

Thanks for your feedback. SFTVLGUY2 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation re: sorting! SFTVLGUY2 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sortkey

Thanks for explaining the Sortkey. I did not understand it. I didn't realize in La Cage that the foreign word La would be set after the comma like "The" or "A". I'll try to remember! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:USMC Film list

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 12:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's cool. Feel welcome to mess with it. -- saberwyn 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiarostami: FAC

Hi, I would like to invite all those who reviewed "Abbas Kiarostami" during last two months to comment on the article at this "final" stage. The article is now featured article candidate. In case you have any comment, please let me know on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbas Kiarostami page. Thanks.Sangak 16:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetizing Articles

Hi. I don't know of any WP rule regarding foreign articles, but in most style guides, foreign articles are not treated like articles for purposes of alphabetizing. But if the film project folks agree, that's fine with me! -- Ssilvers 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 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. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists and alternatives

You thanked me for some (unsuccessful) help at AfD: I think the problem with the lists at AfD was that the lists were some of them over-broad, but all of them hard to define. A great many films include something about (for example) childhood, if only as a flashback, and it is somewhat subjective which ones are featuring it. The term "featuring" was perhaps a little too ambiguous--it could mean either the main point of the film or a subsidiary theme. I think there would be less trouble with a wording like "primarily about" if that is what is meant. Probably there will continue to be problems if a definition includes ones with a subsidiary theme.

To illlustrate: List of films about mathematicians and the Category:Mathematical films, it seems to my inexpert eye--and without having seen all the films--that the Category is the more selective, while the List includes films where the main character is a mathematician, but this is not crucial to the story. (e.g. To Sir with Love). I just looked at one other category, Films featuring museums, and it seemed mostly right--though of course there's always an exception or two: The "museum" in The Fly is first of all not a museum, and second the object the name refers to is not important to the story.

Naturally, the results for ones kept at AfD do not necessarily reflect any particular logic. Best of luck with the categories. I don't always check CsD, so let me know if there are problems.DGG 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Text for the WPFilms award

I've decided to give a certain member this award for his valuable contributions to film articles over the past few months, only to find out that he isn't a member of WikiProject Films. It seems that almost all of the other WikiProject Awards say that they can be given to any wikipedian who contributes to the area of the wikiproject, not only to members. Is there a particular reason that the WPFilms award is limited to members (ie. was there a discussion somewhere?), or can I change the text over here? Esn 07:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

missing films to check

Thanks for the note, as you might have noticed I've been pretty quiet with the missing films lists for a fair while now. My problem with lists and compiling all this information, even in a working area is that I find it hard to start deleting things, I'm an information hoarder. So once articles exist I can't bare to get rid of them so I move them to a check category. I guess I just have to let it go and remove the films. The main thing is to just check individually for disambiguation, that the film is listed on the director's filmography and other key people, as well as listings on the main film lists (eg. Australian films, list of horror films or what have you). Other than that, I guess there's not really much else that needs checking. Maybe there could be a list somewhere to store newly created film articles from the missing articles lists because people can check through those titles, knowing they are pretty new articles and could do with some work. Peter 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

list of country films and other

Thanks for the wikiproject films award, not that I have any idea what I'm supposed to do with it or what it means :) I did see the work on the Canadian film list a while back when it was first being penned up and I'm a little on the fence with it... It's great to have more information about key actors, director, release date etc, but I'm not sure about the messy table layout and column widths etc, I feel it needs some work but I'm not sure how yet I'll think about it. I am very busy at the moment so can't really make further contribution for a fair while but I hope to get back into it when I'm finally free. I feel the list of missing articles, particularly the Australian list I've been working on could act as a basis for the construction of the list of Australian films article, they could both reflect each other to make crossing over easier. Again I just don't know about the tables and the breakup for each year and decade into separate articles, it seems a little overdone, particularly with earlier decades as you mention. And is there some statement on each of the country pages mentioning what makes a Canadian film Canadian for example? eg. I know an Australian director who directed an Irish film, does it make it Australian because of the origin of the director or some of the films actors? Is it the location, the director, the key actors, the premiere country - I'm not sure and I think this should be pointed out to keep the list clear of doubling up so much. Peter 13:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The organizing of film information

Hi Hoverfish,

Thank you for writing.

I think that films in chronological order, and in alphabetical order, are both very useful types of lists for films, and both are worthy of equal representation.

The alphabetical listing is good for people who want to be able to access the film titles (as a kind of index), while the chronological listing is good to show which films were made in which year.

All the best. Figaro 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The chronological listing of the films actually still remains, on the pages for the films, and will remain so — the alphabetical listing is to try to make the films easier to find in the listing.

I have been putting the film titles into an alphabetical listing, keeping them within the chronological ordering of years as the films are now listed, in each of the articles. There were a couple of film titles (on separate articles) which were slightly out of order, which I transferred to their correct positions within the pages.

For the film titles beginning with the word "The", or beginning with the single-letter "A", the alphabetical ordering has been taken from the second word of the title (as is customary for such titles). All the best. Figaro 07:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now also moved some of the film titles into 'alphabetical order' on the pre 1920 page — on those sections which still remain to be put into the chronological order.

Would you like me to set up an independant alphabetical-order pages for the films, which can be used in conjunction with the chronological-order pages for the films, so that both types of listing is available? The alphabetical page would have links through to the relevant chronological film pages. As I commented previously, film titles beginning with the single letter "A", and films beginning with "The", would be listed under the second word in the title (i.e. the film, "The Man from Snowy River", would be listed under "M" for Man, and the film, "The Dish", would be listed under "D" for Dish, etc. etc). Figaro 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for writing. I will leave the situation as it is at the moment (in chronological order). I will also see if I can add some more information sometime. All the best. Figaro 11:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for writing.

Whew! I did not realise that I had made so many edits — I guess they have been quietly adding up (or multiplying!) over the years :) Nor did I know that there was a page keeping track of them. A huge number of the edits, though, were where I have been fixing (correcting) links — as well as where I have been reverting vandalism to some of the articles.

I think that it might best if I left the organizing of the film listing and info to you (and also to Peter), because you are doing a very good job with regard to the film articles. All the best. Figaro 13:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that your idea for shorter segments for the Australian films is great — and that the length that you have chosen for the shorter segments is excellent. Figaro 13:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD notices

I'm not sure I'll be that much help. I usually only read CFD to close discussions. That said, I'll certainly leave a note (at the announcements bit of WP:FILMS?) if I see anything at all relevant. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian Empire films

How many film articles would I have to translate in order for there to be "enough" films for a category? Translating isn't a problem, nor is finding enough films - I'd just like some rough idea... Esn 23:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

trasparent film icon to commons

excuse but I do not know the English language well therefore I entrust to a translator automatic rifle. My intensity was that one to make the background transparent but with paint not there are successful, I do not have an editor png but by now the upload it was made, I have hoped then that someone rendered it transparent.

You have my same problem with GIMP :)... I wanted to say thanks to you for the job... and for the translation. If it serves an aid (help), you know to you where to find to me ;)--Wim b ^Talk you also answer to me here

Whatchadoin

Hi Mr. Hoverfish. Thanks for contacting me, it's very much appreciated! I apologize for not getting back to you, I meant to but time slipped away. As to your question, please give me a until Monday for a complete responce re red links (yuk!). I'll also start the dialogue about caps in Spanish films ASAP. I realize you are a friend of my bud Blofeld and are also a good contact to have insofar films on Wiki is concerned. Have a great week-end. And expect to hear from me on Monday, at the latest. Best regards, Luigibob 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

I think that's funny that you're using GIMP 2 (sounds like Pulp Fiction!), but I haven't done too many reuploading of images. I guess what you can do is go to the image and there's a link you can click that says "Upload a new version of this file". Then, once you reupload it in its place, you can ask Cbrown1023 to delete the original file if you don't think that it will ever be reverted to the original file again. If you think it might ever be switched back, then just leave the original file. Let me know if that makes sense. Which Nintendo are you playing? --Nehrams2020 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say, if you would have had a Wii, I would have been really jealous. I haven't done that many infoboxes in a while, I've mostly just been continuing to assess articles, GA reviews, and fulfilling more image requests. I found this new script that lets you assess articles from the article page, rather than the talk page, so it cuts down the assessing time in half (you can see it at User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js). --Nehrams2020 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't used commons yet, so I guess you would just have to update a new image under a new name. I also prefer only to deal with stubs-starts, but I guess with more practice I can be able to rate B classes. --Nehrams2020 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Film template

I think with the new script that I added that I described above, it tells me what each article is rated on the actual article page itself, plus if its a GA candidate, importance, etc. An example could be seen at this image: Image:Outriggr-script-demo.PNG. This is helping me to determine if an article is really a start class or if a stub needs to be upgraded. My only problem with it is that I did not have this months ago when we were assessing all of the thousands of unassessed articles. Perhaps you should consider adding the script and see if you like it or not. --Nehrams2020 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Film flag icons

Well, even when I scale images down, I notice a difference. For instance, the crescent on the flag of Turkey took on a jagged appearance as a PNG file. But by the time it hits the page at 35px, I can't really tell the difference. So I'm moving ahead. — WiseKwai 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

archiving Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films

The page is getting a bit long, and I'm really leery of screwing it up (I'm not sure if a standard cut & past to archive 10 will be compatible with the index - or even how to put it in the index), can you advise me on the right way to archive that talk page so it will appear on the index! Thanks much. SkierRMH 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking all names in infoboxes

Good day! Finally, getting back to you for an answer.

Generally, I'm against linking "all" names in the infoboxes. First of all, a whole slew of them can be considered "not notable" names and this is especially true of producers, possibly editors, and many actors. Now I realize the Wiki project is unending, but will we ever find information on the so many editor and producers, cinematographers, and even actors with a full article. Where will this information be found. But that's is getting ahead of the game.

I don't like the red links because it gives the appearance that something is missing from reading the article. And I don't like the aesthetics of the red links. I do not mind at all red links in stubs, but do in Start and B articles. Now, this is partly of how I work. 95% of my time on Wiki is devoted to films: I take a film to B if I can find the information, this is true of all the films I take a serious interest in, and then list them on my Userpage. I also check if any names should be linked. And if the major stars and director do not have an article I leave a red link and then afterward start an article on them. I have started many stubs on actors, editors, cinematographers and such. Every now and then, someone tags the stub as "non notable" (see earlier) and then the hassle begins.

As to wiki policy: I can't believe there is a hard and fast rule to red link every name. Some examples:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography: See #8, to wit, "Post an article request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for each broken (red) interwiki link in your article OR remove the double brackets around the broken interwiki link (these are your only two choices)." I like the remove the double backets past if warrented.

Template:Infobox Film: throughout the article this is mentioned, "In addition, link each director [etc] to his/her appropriate article if possible." If possible: I take to mean it's acceptable that if there is no internal wiki article it can be left without linking.

Now for the argument that the red link will let wikipedians know that an article needs to be build. I do not think a red link is a "motivator."

For, all these reasons, I do not use that red link at will. Wikipedians, including many editors, who have come across my pages, seem to leave the links as they are. I hope that continues.

So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Again, I appreciate you contacting me, very thoughful of you and my apologies for the long delay. Luigibob 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

infobox film

The instructions are the same as they were in the old Syntax Guide:

• Release date (Variable: released)

When was the film released? Or when will the film be released?

Use: if possible, the exact release date. ("May 18, 2008") Use the first public non-festival release in any country. This means any limited releases or openings before opening wide should go by the limited release date. If multi-country entries are necessary, you can put the flag icon before the release date for each country (see the 2nd Wiki).

Wiki: [[May 18]], [[2008]]

Wiki: {{Flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[May 18]], [[2008]]

--PhantomS 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

CinemaofAustralia template

I was thinking that the CinemaofAustralia (and all other countries for that matter) should be on all lists of films for each country rather than just one. What's your thoughts on this? Peter 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Get Crazy

Hi, and thank you for the pointers on improving the Get Crazy entry. I added some sections (Production, Reception, Soundtrack) and put some research into them, along with a bit of reorganization of other facts that fit those sections. Kevin Forsyth 15:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it a musical? Interesting question. (My first thought is to say it's not like a typical musical, where characters burst into song to express their feelings or dramatize a plot point — but whether or not that's a fair way of categorizing a musical is a whole different question.) It's more like The Blues Brothers, where musical performances are an integral part of the film. I see BB is tagged with "Category:Musical comedy films" — perhaps that's a good place for Get Crazy. On the other hand, the "Musical films" category is more broad-ranging and includes plenty of movies that are similar in use of music, such as Nashville... so I'd go with two categories, "Comedy films" and "Musical films". Kevin Forsyth 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

American cinema tag

Hi, glad to hear you enjoy working on the WP Films project. Regarding this template, yes I think the MFD was too early, I would have preferred some more discussion first, but it also was annoying to suddenly find this template on every film on my watchlist. I haven't decided, maybe never will :), on the other country tags, but there does need to be some guidelines on which articles to put the American one. For me, I would prefer this tag only on very few articles. Not specific film or actors articles, but more like History of American film (don't know the exact name so fast) and some few articles like that. Regarding your comment on the deletetion page, no asking users for input on the deletion is not so bad, but comments like this should not be made. A message on WP:Film would have been much better. See also Wikipedia:Canvassing. I also am not a huge fun of templates, someone said recently somewhere about stereotypes on different Wikipedia's, that the German one is for quality, the Dutch one love to fight and the English one love templates. :) Garion96 (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Probing alternative: reply

HI there. I'm sorry but I don't see much difference. Is it the change to the "capsules" for each year that you were wondering about?Shawn in Montreal 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sortable

I like the sortable tables. The option gives readers the choice of how they want to view the information. I feel they are intuitive and easy enough to fix should they get messed up. I haven't really thought of any drawbacks. Maybe you can expand on that for me? If there's a downside, I need to know. — WiseKwai 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm clueless, but I looked at the Thai film list and I didn't see any sortable function at all. I still prefer the way we have it in the Canada film list, where each year is a separate capsule, because it improves readibility, at least for moi. Shawn in Montreal 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yes it works. I just didn't recognize those little buttons as such. If it's either/or, I still prefer the improved readability of separate year capsules over the improved functionality of the sort by bottons. If there's a way of combining both, so much the better.

I just figure the more complicated it is, the more likely some editor will happen by and mess it all up, intentionally or not. Maybe that's just being pessimistic, I don't know. I'm fine with either option, really. Shawn in Montreal 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)