Wikipedia

User talk:Erik/Archive 24

< User talk:Erik
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Hunter Kahn in topic Kill Bill sources
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Barnstar!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Socratic Barnstar
for a very sound, beautifully put, and extremely helpful argument at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_featuring_crossword_puzzles. I was in the middle of writing a refutation myself, but on reading this realised that there was no need to. I could not have put it better myself. Great job! Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 19:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Haha, lots of pats on the head today. I haven't gotten a barnstar since March 2009, so I really appreciate it! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

How's it going? That's a great task in improving the article, and it's good you're getting an early start on it. For the trailer, I'm not too sure on the copyright since it's listed as a British film. If you can determine what their copyright requirements are that will help in using the images. Although, I think trailers released specifically for the U.S. are their own entity, so that could have a separate copyright. You can try searching the U.S. Copyright Office's copyright listings and e-mail them for specifics.

Looking at the image, the uploader appears to have added multiple non-free images, so it's possible that it was labeled as a trailer image to avoid having it deleted. If you can find a similar/better screenshot in the trailer, then it can probably be replaced and deleted (assuming the trailer is okay for public domain). I'd recommend looking on the DVD and seeing if there's possibly another trailer outside of the two you've already viewed. If you need me to look at some sources for you, I may have access to some books through my library. Let me know if you want me to check on any. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I guess I'm old school with the back and forth (just realized I've been on here for five years now, pretty crazy). I'm assuming that the different country trailers each have their own copyright, but the copyright office would probably be able to help you verify. I doubt UK trailers have the same freedom for the older trailers as we do (which also isn't that clear cut with the vague copyright guidelines we have). Anytime you need help with any sources or the commentaries, just let me know and I'll take a stab. I wasn't too much a fan of the film, but I recognize it's still important to cinema and would welcome a better article on it. I'm planning to help Blofeld with completing Clint Eastwood's article. That article has the size issue, and there's already been a split to multiple sub articles, so we'll see if it gets trimmed further on an FAC push. Ideally, I'd like to move away from films for a while to try and contact various museums and maybe film studios for batch images of various topics. I've been putting it off, but would like to try my luck and see what additional images I can help secure under free licenses. I'll have some recent ones of Kirk Douglas coming in this week from one of the photographers I collaborate with. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Can you help with cleaning up and maybe even referencing the article T-X if you feel like it. I don't feel like it should be redirected and it would be nice to have a second opinion on that. Jhenderson 777 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend starting a discussion on the talk page. I'll see what I can find. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Do note that discussion is already on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters. Jhenderson 777 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw them, but let's make these notifications instead that point to a discussion on the film article's talk page. Otherwise, the opinions would be scattered all over the place. I think I've found some convincing references for the topic, BTW. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Jhenderson 777 15:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In concern to the latest comment of the editor that I can see his point of but I am not sure I want done. I am holding you responsible to decide the better decision of the article's fate on the talk page if nobody else weighs in. Jhenderson 777 18:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm no arbitrator here. :) Just remember that whatever happens, nothing is being deleted. The character article is always recoverable at a later point. Here, though, I understand the argument that the character article should be a sub-article naturally growing out of the film article. The thing is, I don't see anyone working on Rise of the Machines any time soon, so a merge/redirect seems like bland cleanup. I personally think that the character is iconic enough for her own article, even though she's not an icon on the scale of the Terminator himself. The Neuroscience reference particularly deconstructs the individual character in a way that seems unrealistic to accomplish at the film article. Let me follow up on your notifications to solicit additional opinions about the matter so we can determine some resolution. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DB

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Just wanted to show you this. This whole sitation is ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The conduct is ridiculous, but there is a salient point about referencing shopping websites. I see that someone else also said that they are acceptable but should be used minimally. I think PopSugar is reliable per what Tenebrae shared. Do you disagree? I understand you developed the entire article, but let's make this about the specific content, not editors and conducts. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know or care right now. I know I wouldn't cite it, even if just for the fricking name, but my priority right now is to get the article unprotected (and if we can get T blocked, that wouldn't be a bad result...). T has some kind of ridiculous agenda which is not based upon any policy or guideline and has caused a great amount of disruption, and wasted hours of my time. He has demonstrated that he is not willing or able to discuss this reasonably, and demonstrated he has no respect for our policies/procedures. The less I need to talk with him the better. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you please answer my question on the talk page about treating PopSugar as a reliable source? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Film Sources Search Engine

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Have you been using the Film Sources Search Engine? Just wanted to get some feedback on how it's working out for you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry, I have not. I tend to take a different approach (one I like to call "Google fu") to researching a topic. It involves using various keywords and advanced operators in Google searches of various kinds. I'm not sure if a custom search engine could help me, the way I do things. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For the vandal help today (weird IP and William Hope stuff). The IP guy is interesting - I stumbled onto him tracking an IP sock a few days ago. The William Hope stuff has been going on in conjunction with some weird Ned Beatty edits for months now. But this is the first time I've ever had to ask for protection of my user page. SO I appreciated the extra hand in reverting the weirdness. Millahnna (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) I'll keep an eye out. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Titanic

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It was really helpful of you to weigh in last week. There's a little bit of a problem there since Flyer isn't listening very well. Could become a problem for the article, which is not a trivial one. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of a problem there? I'm the one who fixed that article up as thoroughly as it is. I'm the one who kept it from being demoted of its GA status the first time around. The second time around wasn't even close to serious, as it was just about headings and material placement (and had no chance of being demoted), but I was the one who came up with the solutions (including asking Erik for his solutions, which, following suggestions made by you, you carried out...after you'd argued with and belittled the editor who expressed the concerns). And now, in the present, you state that I am not listening? To an editor (Erik) you feel doesn't even respect others' opinions? Ridiculous. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I was/am not listening. Further, by saying "not listening," you act as though such a trivial thing as mentioning co-stars in the lead, which just about every Wikipedia film article does to some degree, is hindering the article. And, really, no one agreed with you that co-stars should not be mentioned in the lead. One editor agreed with me about the framing device. One editor agreed with you about the framing device. And Erik simply stated that he wouldn't mention Old Rose over the mention of more awards, and that Cal isn't a necessary mention at all. That is not the same thing as saying "co-stars should not be in the lead." The other matters -- the "some characters are fictitious" part, and Cameron's inspiration/intentions for the film -- weren't even weighed in on by the others, with the exception of Betty (who agreed with me on the fictitious information regarding Jack and Rose anyway). So stop pretending that you were justified in your edits, which are not based on any guideline and actually go against the precedent set by other GA and FA film articles, and as though I am the one harming the article by wanting it to comply with the same informative standards of other GA and FA film articles. I compromised with you; as you know, there is now no mention of Old Rose, the framing device, or Cal Hockley in the lead. The "some characters are fictitious part" is not even in the lead anymore. Cameron's inspiration/intentions will stay, however, as that is what a compromise is -- both sides getting their way in part -- and it is pretty silly to say that a summary of the director's inspiration/intentions for the film should not be in the lead. So suffice it to say, I listen; I just don't always agree.
And, hi, Erik. You already know I truly respect you (from our past interactions, etc.) and that I wanted you to weigh in. Thank you for doing so. Sorry that this mess has been brought to your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Erik. I appreciate you weighing in with a difficult editor. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The only one who has proved themselves difficult is you, Ring Cinema. You don't respect other people's opinions. Cannot compromise even on the smallest of things. And when you don't, you condescend to and belittle people, and accuse them of the exact thing you were being/doing, as was in the case of Erik and now me. I saw that you even did the same thing to Bignole. Only when they/we agree with you...do you act all friendly. I cannot believe I ever stated that I respect you. And out of the two of us, Erik knows who truly respects him; he's not an idiot. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Riddick (2011 film)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a promo-reel of this movie with Vin Diesel and David Twohy. I'll try to find some reliable sources. I'm removing template - The Castbreeder (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I just think it is really early to have that kind of article. Despite IMDb saying a release year of 2011, it certainly will not be produced and released this year. Compare this very uncertain project to 47 Ronin (film), which is lined up to begin filming this Monday. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the honour

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you very, very much for the honour of asking me to participate with your editors. I'll have to think about that as I'm still in the workforce and spare time can be a problem.Foofbun (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is no big deal, really. :) We have some very active editors and some occasional editors. The WikiProject provides structure in some regards, like having guidelines to address recurring situations or having notifications or discussions about certain topics. No dues or x requirements for you to do this and that! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wow, thank you Erik for this timely heads-up about the new scholarly sources for Themes in Avatar. Its unbelievable because I'm just mulling over your and other editors' suggestions at the article's FAC page these days, trying to figure out how to improve its sourcing to finally meet the FA criteria. Any help you and other editors feel inclined to offer towards that end will be most appreciated. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the main challenge is accessing the sources. Can you find a nearby library that has any of these sources? Some will subscribe to electronic databases where you can access and print out PDFs of these articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I've just left Australia where I did have a good nearby library, and am traveling in India for another month or so. Will see what I can access on-line, or else will have to wait till I get back – unless, of course, some willing editors decide to contribute the sources before that. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WQA and the removal of citation templates

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Erik. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The issue is at WP:WQA#user:Bzuk and the removal of citation templates. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for Inviting

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am now registering as a user account. Darrell 89 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Films list

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey. Since I wrote that, a nice GUI has been written, Catscan 2.0. I think it should be able to do what you want (two queries: one with categories and one with the infobox). If you need any help with it, do still shout though :) - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

re: CatScan

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Erik. Yes, I've used it before - the last time to look for Mexican film stubs. Quite a useful tool. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit (film project)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Filming has finally begun! I was wondering if you can give me a hand turning the project article into a film article. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally! :) I am busy today, so I cannot help. Some suggestions: revise the "Cast" section so table is not stretched across the screen, maybe even just use bullet points instead? Also, it may be worth requesting a move to a new title, though I am not sure what. Maybe "The Hobbit films" until we get official titles? (I think that "The Hobbit (films)" sounds too official and inaccurate.) In addition, it may be worth doing a content fork for the film's development history. It is a lot of information that is not as pertinent to what is in production now. Production of Watchmen is similar in having the project's development history mostly on a sub-article. I'll check back later! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:Godzilla (2012 film project)#Changing to redirect

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see you were involved in discussion on a previous AfD. Anything you'd like to add? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 47 Ronin (film)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One of many good hooks in this DYK load - thanks Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

  The WikiProject Film Award
I, TriiipleThreat (talk), hereby award Erik the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film. Your significant contributions to The Avengers (film project) aided in the unprecedented task of bringing a film project article up to standard!
Awarded 14:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Film projects

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made a category for these: W:Category:Film projects. I tagged the three films I could find. Maybe this will be helpful to keep track of them. Barsoomian (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Opinion from regs needed

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am pinging you because you have over 150 edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and have edited the page this month. I have gotten no responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Template:WikiProject_Awards and need some to resume a major cleanup project I have been doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The March 2011 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) 21:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

time maybe to reboot Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films ?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You and Giro were the primary acrhetects of this sub-project way back in October of 2007.[1] In the original version and up through today, the page included the phrase "For these articles, the primary notability guideline is that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot." While the italicized portion of that sentence appears to come right out of WP:NFF, it is generally considered across the rest of Wikipedia that the "primary notability guideline" is WP:GNG.

I'd like to modify that sentence to more accurately state "For these articles, the criteria set as part of Wikipedia:Notability (films) instruct that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot."

And to borrow slightly from NFF, I'd also like to add a caveat or two that clarifies that

When the events surrounding a film's pre-production have the persistant and in-depth coverage to meet the primary notability guideline, and by so doing merit inclusion and discussion per policy, information on the film project might best be included in pre-existing articles of a particular person, company or organization associated with the film under discussion, until the start of principal photography has been confirmed.

But and as this sub-project deals specifically with "future films", I'd like to address the well-meant but often premature creation of "project" articles by including this paragraph on "exceptions":

Exceptions to the applicable notability guideline may be considered ONLY IF the coverage of the topic of a future film is itself enduring and persistant in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with violations of WP:NOTNEWS) and ONLY IF if there is too much properly verifiable information for an article whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur", to be reasonably placed anywhere else.

What-cha think? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's live... and it may be more helpful than not

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Future Films Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The April 2011 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) 22:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good article reassessment

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pan's Labyrinth has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pulp Fiction

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pulp Fiction is going through a GA review and has been placed on hold for seven days to allow issues to be addressed. Talk:Pulp Fiction/GA1. SilkTork *Tea time 19:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

URLs on "List of film periodicals"

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

noticed in a past revision of the article "List of film periodicals" you made, the URL info for the periodicals was removed. just wanted to find out if this was a simple mistake, or if there was a reason behind it (before i go through the trouble of adding them back). maybe as a longtime wikipedia editor you have a better way of re-adding the info from the past revision. thanks. Neuenglander (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I think the URLs were removed because per #2 in WP:ELPOINTS, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." This list is not one of the exceptions mentioned. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
ok, that's too bad. any other way of getting the url information for those periodicals that have a website into the article? seems otherwise a loss of valuable information. Neuenglander (talk) Neuenglander (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple of approaches you could use. You could try to create a Wikipedia article for the notable periodicals and provide "official" links in the articles. Another way is to create an "External links" section at the end to list the URLs, though we don't want to turn the section into a link farm. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominic Toretto

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I reverted the redirect of the article on Dominic Toretto to the character list per the results of the deletion discussion here: 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dominic_Toretto_%28Character%29

I agree that the article could use more citations to reliable external sources, as well as impact on Vin Diesel's career, audience reaction, course of the series, etc. and I put a suggested starter list of independent secondary references on the Talk page. To my mind, there is plenty of support for notability, and the existing article is the work of over a dozen named editors over about two years - a standalone page for this character seems justified. Macchess (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I see the AFD now. However, the article is still problematic. It pretty much repeats the plot summaries of the two films where the character has a major appearance, so we should not repeat that much detail. It makes it look like the article is more substantial than it actually is. In addition, the article needs to include more real-world coverage. I looked at the talk page at your sources. I don't find the reviews very useful because it should not be surprising to anyone that critics will comment on main characters as part of their review for a film. The two books, Vin Diesel: Fueled for Success and The American South in a global world are instead useful because their focus on the character is stronger than these reviews. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think your current edit (deleting the plot summaries, and leaving the non-plot material), is a good start. As you say, that is pretty much available just by clicking on the links to the films. I agree that the article needs more real-world coverage, I'll work on that. I agree that reviews need not be helpful for that material, but I think I can mine some from them. Macchess (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Cut / Taglio

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I'm not a regular contributor, but I just thought I would let your community know that the English article 'Cut' (as in a change of camera angle) is linked to the Italian article 'Taglio' (which only means 'cut' in the sense of removing scenes - therefore a different article). 'Raccordo' is the Italian term for a cut in the sense of a change of camera angle (as far as I know). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.230.29 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out! I removed the unrelated link. It looks like the Italian Wikipedia does not have a "Raccordo" article in relation to filmmaking. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tintin & Nickelodeon Movies

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The movie poster and the teaser trailer CLEARLY state the Nickelodeon Movies is involved with The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddiKjC_4BOo&feature=player_embedded. The Wikipedia articles were NOT vandalized. Also, IMDb, is not a reliable source for movie info, as it is used edited.Richiekim (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction! A vandal was adding this relationship, and I couldn't verify it, so I assumed it was false. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Allmovie new site

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've noticed that Allmovie.. or Allrovi, has revamped their sites. They have added an infobox to the side and included film studios, distributors and countries. Do you think this can be used as a source for articles where the film's country is disputed? One example is Resident Evil: Afterlife. Allrovi says it's a Canadian and German film, which is more than any other site has said (excluding IMDb, lol). —Mike Allen 03:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is okay to use; I've used it with a few articles to clean up the company-related mess left behind by IP vandals. I haven't seen a reason not to use it yet. Still, the whole country/company-related thing can be painful to figure out since you can never be 100% sure. (Apparently Nickelodeon Movies has a relationship with The Adventures of Tintin, one not found in a search engine test but in promotional materials.) Erik (talk | contribs) 11:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The Infobox film says, "Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc. Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in."
Not sure why it would include Allmovie. I know IMDb is problematic because it can be pretty indiscriminate (calling Fight Club a German film in part because of some relationship I can't figure out), but Allmovie seems to me to be closer to truth. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just wanted to say welcome back. Where you've been? Jhenderson 777 17:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Just real-life situations. Not sure if I will be staying much longer, but definitely had fingers itching to update quite a few articles. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
So you are being busy in the real world. I definitely understand that. ;) It's good to have you back whenever you are here. Jhenderson 777 19:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hangover II

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for working that out. Things were getting unduly aggressive. Barsoomian (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they were. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DYK for Operation Breakthrough

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

marketing

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Perhaps it would be a good idea to include an example of a good marketing section (and maybe a bad one too). --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea! Suggest including examples at MOS:FILM? I'm not liking the section at Cowboys & Aliens (film) in particular, and I'm trying to explain why it's a bit overkill. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man (film)

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What do you think if I requested a name change of The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) to The Amazing Spider-Man (film). It's obviously the more notable one with that name than the television movie. Jhenderson 777 15:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose it, honestly. The primary topic is The Amazing Spider-Man, and I think all topics after the primary topic should be disambiguated from each other, including two films of the same name. Supporting an ambiguous title for a secondary topic makes the article disambiguation a hierarchy, saying that this topic is the most important, this topic is the second most important, this topic is the third most important, etc. The primary topic guidelines do not say anything about a hierarchy, but others try to apply the guidelines again to the set of secondary topics after the one primary topic has already been determined. Readers will have no trouble finding the article for the 2012 film; if they search "the amazing spider-man", they'll find it on the disambiguation page. Although I'd be fine with linking to the 2012 film in the hatnote of the primary topic's article since it's more prominent. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, just checking. I just know that film is going (or is already) to be the more notable film of that name per WP:Common name and we could have used the other film as a hatnote to this one. It still would have been just as easy to navigate. But since you oppose I am not going to do it. Jhenderson 777 15:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It's just my opinion on that matter. :) There are articles like Independence Day (film) and Psycho (film) that I think should be disambiguated. Neither way is truly harmful, but I think trying to give a secondary topic an ambiguous term (like "The Amazing Spider-Man (film)") is too subjective, where we can be objective by disambiguating everything and avoiding repeated discussions on the matter. As for common naming conventions, I don't think it has to do with disambiguation. WP:PRECISION is probably more accurate but don't think it's intended for complicated situations. It just means that if you have a secondary topic (the film) based on the primary topic (a popular book), you wouldn't disambiguate the film with (2011 American film directed by John Doe). You'd just have (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jhenderson777/John Dies at the End (film)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am asking for assistance on this draft if you don't mind helping. :) Jhenderson 777 15:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The May 2011 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) 01:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Cars 2 marketing section

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Erik, I noticed that you deleted the marketing section in the Cars 2 article. I'm a little new with the marketing sections in film articles, but I think I'm starting to get the hang out it. After reviewing the MOS:FILM#Marketing, it seems that one of the major reasons that you chose to delete the section was because it lacked reliable sources and notability. I reviewed the section and supplemented it with several reliable sources. I also thought that it was worth adding information about the viral campaign. The viral campaign received coverage from major film sites, so I believe it is notable. I re-drafted the section (as well as the rest of the article) and it would be great to get some feedback. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The big challenge with writing a "Marketing" section is to have information of value. I do not think that saying this trailer or that poster being released on a given date is valuable information; all mainstream films have that kind of standard marketing. I think that talking about viral marketing is a good start, but I'm not keen on all the information about the trailers. I think that when we talk about trailers, we need to go beyond mere release dates and the media used. For example Valkyrie (film)#Marketing talks about how the first trailer received mixed buzz and how the second trailer was considered a vast improvement. One of the keys to writing a "Marketing" section, I think, is to find reputable sources that talk about a film's marketing. For example, with all these movie websites, they will always report on the latest promotional materials for people like us but rarely provide in-depth commentary. For example, I've tried to do this with Kung Fu Panda 2#Marketing, which uses just one source, but it's a pretty informative one. Yet another example (also incomplete) is Cowboys & Aliens (film)#Marketing, of which I particularly like the first paragraph. What you could do is research the sub-topic more in-depth. In Google, you can search for "cars 2" marketing, which yields this on the first page. However, when I search for "cars 2" viral in Google News Search in 2011, I do not find any good articles, which leads me to believe that the social media-type marketing is ubiquitous. I think it's best to let secondary sources (like major periodicals) by the guides because otherwise, the section can sound very promotional in nature when it just talks about the standard fare, using reports that are barely removed from the promotional materials themselves. Pardon me for being long-winded, but that's my thinking on the matter. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. That makes a lot more sense now, and I can see how the section can come across as promotional. I think the "Google test" is always a good rule of thumb. I also read through the Valkyrie marketing section, and I see what you mean. With that article, the marketing is extremely notable, and unique. Another great example is The Simpsons Movie. In each case, the marketing is a little more "stand out" than your average campaign (ie more than just trailers, images, etc). I'll keep this in mind moving forward. Thanks again for the help. --TravisBernard (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The Simpsons Movie is a great example to follow too. If you have access to a library, you can search electronic databases for sources not readily available online. Other keywords to use are promotion and advertising. Good luck! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion

Ok, thanks :D Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've not really noticed the template though it probably isn't best for it to be there during the opening weekend. Just seems like the result of the discussion is obvious. I'd move it, I don't know if it is an issue or not that "The Hangover: Part II" will be a redirect but to just move I can do that and you should be able to do that too, it's the button with the little down arrow near the "History" tab Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah Ok I see the problem, The Hangover Part II already exists. I understand now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It's what I was talking about a few days ago on the Film Project page. Every minor thing has to turn into this huge discussion because otherwise its just reverts. The Hangover's plot at the minute is terrible and it's factually incorrect but I'm so burned out with like my 4th debate in two weeks with people over small details that I just don't want to get involved with it. I like Wikipedia but the system for dealing with these issues is flawed. Even with consensus you get issues like Cowboys and Aliens where the one person just refuses to give up against majority opinion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
What's the policy regarding upcoming films because I've been interested in this Burt Wonderstone starring Steve Carrell. There isn't much info on it but they've confirmed a director today, there's a premise, writers and Carrell starring but its not due until 2013 and I had wanted to put up a stub on the film but I think Django unchained just got removed even though there was info on that, but I'm not sure if progress on that was more preliminary, it didn't even have any actors. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
K, thanks Erik I've taken your advice and done that Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for you explanatory post on my Talk page just now. I appreciate your going to the effort to find and link to past discussions on the subject, and I'd have to agree you came on a little strong. I do respect the fact you've spent so much time working on the guidelines to begin with, though I certainly understand how even those who helped craft them as you did might have disagreed among themselves and come up with compromises with which one might not agree.

I'm always happy to see an experienced and knowledgeable editor who isn't so jaded that he or she can still be collegial, as I certainly try to be. So I do thank you, and I'm sure we can have positive discussions. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Moves

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Already stopped. Got the moves I wanted. Right, the page histories are mixed up a bit now. Everything else should be good. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have keeled over and died about two days ago. I think the movie is about 100 times more notable than the comic book series in terms of media coverage (for starters). Can anyone really argue otherwise? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the one issue is the page histories. The discussion seems split between moving them to dab pages and moving the film into as the main page. So why revert the whole thing if the status quo is something no one seems to want? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

2010 in film

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was trying to get rid of some fakes on 2010 in film. But failed miserably on the preview to make the box seem right. I noticed right after an IP editor did it. But exactly what happened when I previewed it happened when he did it and I don't have time right now to fix it. Jhenderson 777 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I finally figured out the problem. Nice job with with helping fixing Cowboys & Aliens (film). ;) Jhenderson 777 23:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Bleh, it was like getting teeth pulled for a while there. :) Please, feel free to weigh in on anything in particular. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hamill (film)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Into Temptation

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Erik. Just wanted to bring your attention to this, as I'm hoping to make sure people participate in the Into Temptation (film) FAC. Your input has always been helpful so if you are able to participate, it'd be much appreciated. — Hunter Kahn 14:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I saw your message on WT:FILM. I want to comment but I need to allot a chunk of time to be able to do so. I'll try my best to weigh in when I can. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

leaving Myles alone

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I didn't ask for your feedback. I made an observation about you. I predict you will not want to talk about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your observation and my feedback are related, but if you did not want my feedback, that is fine. I just think that you can be a better editor. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why you said "Let's leave Myles alone", Eric. I am the first and only one who has made a (fairly comprehensive) critique of the sub-standard material in the Plot of The Secret in Their Eyes. None of it has been answered. I especially noted, about three times now, that a major character is killed in the movie, and this is simply disregarded in the synopsis, although, to make it worse, there are references to his being grieved over later on. I would have a stab at it myself, but I was already confused by the film, and I was not so fond of it as to rent it again just to prove a point. (Frankly, I was disappointed in it considering the great reviews it has been getting.) But I might do that, or at the very least get some imdb posters to thrash it out. Myles325a (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I answered you on the discussion page, Myles. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As predicted, Erik, you don't want to talk about it. It's kind of revealing that you respond to a critic not by trying to correct your mistakes, but by trying to undermine him. Very petty on your part, thin-skinned, but some people are like that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Be a better editor than that, Ring Cinema. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Judging from your response, I'm accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop removing my reference to Rubik's Cube

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This is valid point. There must be other errors in this movie. This is the only I have been able to verify so far. WIMHARTER (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

All films have discrepancies. Movie Mistakes lists quite a few of them. But in Wikipedia articles about films, we are trying to provide a narrative of what the film is about, how it came to be, and how it was received. Unless a film's discrepancies are noted heavily by secondary sources, it is usually not worthwhile information to include in Wikipedia articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My point and the other users point is valid. It can be easily verified by checking Google. I even went as far to put a timeline showing that deice was not named Rubik’s Cube until named 1980. It is not original research, I simply pay attention while I was watching the movie.

What makes your input in more valid then mine? I would be more concerned that the description gives the whole movie.

Other users must have thought my input was valid. Some one changed my original wording for clarity. Someone else changed Mistake to Anachronism.

Both Rubik’s Cube and the reference bothered me when I saw them. That is why I added it when I was able verify that there were was no Rubik’s Cube in 1979. Someone else added the Walkman reference.

I will leave it to you to add it back. Also put a spoiler warning. WIMHARTER (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It was glaring obvious to me. Did you see the film yet? It is worth watching.

When I heard the reference to Rubik’s Cube I thought I don’t remember hearing about it in 1979.

Errors like this and continuity errors interfere with my enjoyment of film or TV show. I think someone could have checked this in about 5 minutes.

At the time the movie took place I was 16. At that I had never heard of a to Rubik’s Cube or Walkman. The Movie just came out it may take a while for other people to see it. WIMHARTER (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Then we should wait to see if there is a source. Wikipedia is not supposed to be trailblazing in regard to content; it passes on what reliable sources have reported. See Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Life of Pi (film)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Materialscientist (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot notice

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Man, looking at above it seems you can never get a week of no issues or push-backs on any edits. Anyway, I just now saw the plot notice template you created all the way back in October in use on Super 8. That's definitely a helpful inclusion, I'm surprised I've not noticed it before. Have you seen any success with reduced editing to plots with use of the template? I also want to let you know that I'm going to continue to have less interactions with WP:FILM as I work on a local SD project. I'm planning on advertising this month to see if someone would like to take over the newsletter (I've now realized I've been doing it for nearly four and a half years). I know I've never been that involved with the discussions, but will continue to assist with requested copyedits and helping new editors. I'm glad to see other editors have stepped up, many with positive outlooks on the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to use the template a lot. I think I tend to leave film articles alone when they're in the process of being released. I suppose I like my article traffic minimal. :) I don't know if it works or not, I think I only used it for a few films at the time, including Megamind and possibly Saw 3D? For Super 8, I noticed a lot of plot summary edits and decided to give the template a try. I think most people who edit the plot summary are not familiar enough with using secondary sources and adding non-plot information, but it's hard to measure non-activity when these editors see the template and realize that their changes are a small part of a large set for the summary.
You've been very devoted to the newsletter! I'd be happy to help, though I think it would help to get a small group together to cover each other. Any chance you can write a set of instructions, explaining where you usually get the information, like films' release dates or DYKs? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I figure the summer months would be the best time to make use of the template, especially with some of these blockbusters that get quite elaborate plots. Anything that encourages editors to edit more than the plot is a positive. Yeah, I was planning on writing a guide and I'll probably recommend that a bot be used to deliver the newsletter, as most editors probably wouldn't be interested in the manual AWB editing. I'd have no problems helping out at times or fine tuning before delivery, but hopefully others will take on the main task and maybe go on in a new direction. I'll make an announcement in this month's newsletter and see if there are any takers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you and...

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for your level headed responses in the talk page for Project Film MOS. I also appreciate (as an editor) that you felt an ANI was called for and agree my behavior warranted the discussion. I also believe you deserve an apology for my behavior and extend it in the spirit of cooperation and furthering consensus in a civil manner ...and as well because I simply feel you deserve it on a personal level.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

HollywoodChicago.com

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Erik. A few years ago, you recommended hollywoodchicago.com be blacklisted from Wikipedia. Can I assume you made this recommendation because the site owner was spamming Wikipedia with unnotable reviews and creating COI articles (relevant discussions: [2]User_talk:ThuranX/Archive_6#HollywoodChicago)? The reason I ask is I've used a question and answer transcript-style interview from the site as a source for the Tom Hooper (director) article. The editorial content is sound but as the site is on the blacklist I don't want it to affect a future FAC nomination. Would you mind sharing your opinion as to whether the whole site can be whitelisted or if I should just get an exception made for the interview URL? Thanks. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

While I doubt that removing the website from the blacklist would return us to the spamming that took place a few years ago, I reviewed the website today, and it seems to be mostly reviews with some news items not originally reported. (Like Russell Crowe in talks for Man of Steel definitely came from the trade papers.) Interviews seem fine, and I doubt that the spam history of the domain will have an effect on the FAC nomination. If possible, I would try to get an exception made for the specific URL. Any chance of using WebCite or the Internet Archive to do that? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Erik. I've already WebCited it but it just stands out as a little suspicious without the active link in place. I'll put in a request for the URL to be made an exception. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Chain Saw's last FAC

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Erik. Just wanted to let you know that the last FAC for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre didn't go that well either. I dunno what it is about the article that seems to stop it from FAC. This one was mainly about the prose, then at the end (after it was restarted), about a couple of sources. As it stands now, I'm not sure I would risk a further FAC, the peer reviews hardly got any reviews. I'm think of abandoning it all together. 3 years and no FAC, some articles move to FA pretty qucikly, but not this one. I don't know what to do with the article anymore.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. :( At least you've provided an article that covers the topic well. It may not have the star, but if people see the film and want to read the article, they will be in for a treat. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I really want it to become featured, but I don't want to run up a FAC tab, it's now on its 5th.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
My exams are nearly over. I'm thinking of taking it to FAC at least one more time (and hopefully the last time). Any advice? --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is over here. It'd be great if you could comment. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fantasia Film Festival

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Erik, I have a few festival diaries from international publications I can send you (some are print only so I will have to scan). Between these and more recent web sources it should at least be apparent when the festival started, who started it, who the programmers are, what audience numbers are like, and what films screened/what guests appeared in person in which years. Although the press will not list every film or guest, many of the names previously listed will be verifiable. So is there somewhere I can email scanned documents as well as links to web press? And how soon will someone add to/create a Fantasia page, since I have been told by user:Island Monkey that I am not allowed to edit or create the page myself? Thanks! Kier-La Janisse Kier-la (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You do not have to send files to me. Island Monkey is incorrect to say that you cannot work on the article. See WP:AVOIDCOI, which says you can edit if you exercise great caution. For example, from the coverage you have, try to provide a basic description of the film festival. Avoid any kind of praise and stick to names and numbers. Do you know how to reference a publication? You can use a template like {{cite news}} or {{cite journal}}. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comic-Con

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed you removed, the marketing section from The Avengers (2012 film). I know it wasn't much besides the comic-con appearance, but while these appearances are becoming more common place, they are far from the norm of movie marketing as noted by WP:FILMMOS#Marketing. I do not have strong opinion on the matter, just thought I'd share my veiwpoint.

On a related topic, Marvel Studio's absence from this year Comic-Con (which was expected to showcase The Avengers) in favor of D23 is creating a lot of buzz. If the section were to be restored I wonder if this would be worth including. Heres a source from the The Los Angeles Times; Marvel makes it official: No Hall H panel at Comic-Con.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that The Avenger's non-appearance is worth mentioning?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, let's include it. It seems like part of a new trend to avoid backlash when possible. We can always remove it later. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

French Film task force

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I just added my name to the French Film task force and wanted to know more about the project. I am adding articles related to French films and actors and, although the information I have found thus far for my subjects is not as exhaustive as the data you may gather for top movie stars, I believe it helps integrating the film industry databse in Wikipedia. I am enclosing the link to my last piece, as I'd like to have your feedback on it. Thank you in advance and I look forward to hearing from you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_(film)

Archiveeditor (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to WikiProject Film! Articles about French films are definitely welcome. Obviously this Wikipedia is Anglophile-leaning. Regarding Betty (film), it looks like a good start so far! You did not have to move it to Betty (French Film). On Wikipedia, we use "(film)" if the term is the only film on Wikipedia. Other films of a similar title may exist, but they'll need to be created before we go beyond just "(film)". In addition, we largely use the release year to disambiguate film articles. For example, if there happened to be a 2011 film named Betty, then we would have Betty (1992 film) and Betty (2011 film).
As you may have noticed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/French cinema task force is not a busy page. Our task forces are not usually very active; I think most editors interested in film have busy lives and have too different interests to collaborate on one set of films. I recommend having WT:FILM on your watchlist as we have plenty of discussions there. I will review your article further on the article's talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Erik,

I saw your message and review on my article. Thank you for the intervention. I indeed speak French fluently and I would like to help with translations if needed and, with regards to film articles, I agree with you when saying that reviews for old titles like Betty (1992) are scarce and hard to come across. I am enclosing two more links of articles I wrote in the past few days and you will see that the story sections do not have much in it.

Whilst I understand that articles should cover each subject comprehensively, I think (in this specific case) that informing anglophone readers on foreign subjects is important. Moreover, even though an article like Betty or other films may not be as articulate as pages like Casablanca or Gone With The Wind, they offer a first insight on the subject with short-yet-precise data, and I believe that is also one of the purposes for which an encyclopedia exists.

As per references, you'll see that I have cited Le Figaro in my work more than once, since it's a worldwide accredited publication and it has a cinema section. Again, this is my opinion and it's not meant to counter Wikipedia's rules and information pillars.

I look forward to hearing from you again soon and wish to thank you again for your support.

Best,

Archiveeditor (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Portes_de_la_Nuit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_vous_aime

Le Figaro appears to meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, so it is okay to use. I assume that you prefer to write short articles about French films where they did not exist before? I know that researching a single film for a truly comprehensive article is difficult, so no worries if you just want to create multiple articles rather than focus on just a few.
Please note that French films should meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, meaning that there should be plenty of coverage from secondary sources (either English, French, or otherwise) about the film. For example, with Betty, we saw numerous reviews already, and I saw some potential coverage in Google Books Search. However, I think the topics you're creating so far are notable; just not enough for English-language speakers. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Erik,

I have taken your suggestions into serious account and have found a review by Chicago Sun Times' Roger Ebert. Here's the link of the updated article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_(film)

Thanks.

Archiveeditor (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

New Movie Article

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Erik,

I took your word for it and I wish to ask for your feedback on the following article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Archiveeditor/Quelques_jours_avec_moi which I just completed.

The reception section is probably too thin however I'm still looking for extra reviews. As per the rest of the work I believe I have followed the parameters you had suggested. I look forward to hearing your opinion and thanks again.

Archiveeditor (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi just asking, but could you reply to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources? Please? thanks for all the help, by the way.MayhemMario 15:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

 
Hello, Erik. You have new messages at MayhemMario's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for all the help finding images for Heather Chasen and finding what references are reliable and which are not. MayhemMario 15:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate it! I checked again on the Flickr image, and there's still no licensing change, sigh... Erik (talk | contribs) 16:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're watching the task force page

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I left a message here. Lighthead þ 18:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am watching it! :) I will respond there. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Just an update, Erik; I left a message on the most active and recent editors to the link you provided. I tried to avoid people who were mostly specific to one film. It's funny, because one person who made changes was blocked a few hours ago; so I definitely don't want to contact him! Ha ha ha! I might go over that link and look at the people who were the most active in the last 30 days; that might provide a fuller spectrum, just in case I missed anybody. But anyway; that's what's going on. Talk to you soon! Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 20:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that the task force is spelled wrong! That's very unprofessional. I'm gonna copy and paste it to a new page. This is gonna be the third time! Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Erik, watch the new page: here. Wow, that typo really reflects poorly on me. But anyway, I fixed it. I also fixed the links I put on other people's pages. Fortunately, it wasn't a lot of people. Whoo! Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 21:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The June 2011 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Black Swan poster.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Black Swan poster.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion about the poster is here. :) —Mike Allen 09:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Awful lot of concern about poster preference. I don't see any reason to change the status quo; infobox guidelines say to choose the original theatrical release poster "ideally". Erik (talk | contribs) 10:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re: Kill Bill

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Erik. I am back from my long weekend. As far as your question of how much I wanted to do, I also tend to shoot for FA status when I work on articles (even if I bring them to GA status first), so if you are asking whether we want to try to work these articles up to FA rather than GA, I'm completely game for that. (Just a disclaimer though, July looks like it will be a busy month for me -- most of my next few weekends are booked and I have another week-long vacation coming up, although I can bring the laptop on that one and probably can edit.) How would you suggest we get started? Do you need my help on anything before the split, or do you have that on lockdown? And how do you suggest we break up the work after that? Should we just split the references we've collected so far and then start plugging away? — Hunter Kahn 13:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is mostly ready to be split. I may delete a good part of the old content from "Critical reception", which references filmcritic.com and Combustible Celluloid. (We can do better than that.) While I've used some web-based references in my cleanup so far, I think it may be advantageous to make Tarantino books the central references for non-analytical content. That way, our references in general won't be so piecemeal. I'll have to see which books I can retrieve from my local library or through the interlibrary loan system. Maybe you can do the same? Also, if you're going on vacation, really, no need to edit. :) The article has plenty of time to grow. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, this will be a relaxing vacation coming up, not a traveling one, so I'm actually hoping to do a little bit of editing. :D That being said, it probably will have to be a gradual pace at which I edit Kill Bill over the next few months, but as you said, we've got plenty of time. As per your suggestion, I will check my local libraries for which books/articles I can get my hands on and get back to you. (I have the DVDs too, so I can mine those for commentaries/featurettes, but the books will probably be the best place to start.) — Hunter Kahn 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Erik. Just wanted to say that I haven't forgotten about my volunteering to help out with Kill Bill, and I'm sorry that I haven't gotten started on it yet. I've been doing some pretty extensive work on Characters of Parks and Recreation because I hope to nominate it for FL (never done an FL before so I don't really know if I'm there yet) and was trying to wrap that up ASAP before my vacation. I plan to check my local libraries for KB sources very soon and get started on that. Sorry again! — Hunter Kahn 17:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries! I'm in the process of retrieving some of the references. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the old "film projects" issue again!

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'd be interested in your opinion on this Lone Ranger film. My earlier concerns about "film projects" seemed to have reared their heads again. To my mind there is no reason this article shouldn't stay at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, until guidelines at WP:NFF kick in. A good example of why we should follow WP:NFF is Cleo (film) --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that they should all be merged. The problem with a stand-alone article for a project in development is that there is a constant insistence to treat it as if it is a film that will come out. If it is only a section in a broader article (such as the source material's), its status is rightfully downplayed. When filming begins, which is a pretty early point to start an article anyway, the chances of an actual release are much higher. With Man of Steel (film project), I'm grudgingly accepting its status since it's close enough to August 2011, but if something disrupts development, I'd definitely support a merge. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah okay, you're pretty much exactly where I stand on the whole issue then. Sorry - not canvassing or anything, just wanted your considered opinion. Thanks.  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ha! As I thought, my redirect has been reverted, with the editor citing Man of Steel as an example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I just incubated Pacific Rim (film) at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Pacific Rim (film). Let me know if you have seen any other articles about projects only in development. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. A pre-emptive incubation (with perhaps an explanatory note to author) is a kind act that prevents much uneeded heat, discourse, and drama at AFD. I approve. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kill Bill sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hey Erik, it's Hunter Kahn. It looks like these are the Kill Bill sources I can get my hands on:

  • Barlow, Aaron (2010). "Kill Bill: An Extreme Fairy Tale". Quentin Tarantino: Life at the Extremes. Extreme Filmmakers. Praeger. pp. 107–122. ISBN 978-0-313-38004-4.
  • Biderman, Shai (2005). "The Roar and the Rampage: A Tale of Revenge in Kill Bill Volumes I and II". In Blessing, Kimberly A. (ed.). Movies and the Meaning of Life. Open Court. pp. 199–210. ISBN 978-0-8126-9575-5.
  • Booker, M. Keith (2007). Postmodern Hollywood: What's New in Film and Why It Makes Us Feel So Strange. Praeger. pp. 92–96. ISBN 978-0-275-99900-1.
  • Coulthard, Lisa (2007). "Killing Bill: Rethinking Feminism and Film Violence". In Tasker, Yvonne; Negra, Diane (eds.). Interrogating Postfeminism: Gender and the Politics of Popular Culture. Console-ing Passions. Duke University Press Books. pp. 153–175. ISBN 978-0-8223-4032-4.
  • Dancey, Angela (2009). "Killer Instincts: Motherhood and Violence in The Long Kiss Goodnight and Kill Bill". In Hall, Ann C.; Bishop, Mardia (eds.). Mommy Angst: Motherhood in American Popular Culture. Praeger. pp. 81–92. ISBN 978-0-313-37530-9.
  • Franklin, Daniel P. (2006). "Feature film: Kill Bill: Vol. 2". Politics and Film: The Political Culture of Film in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7425-3808-5.
  • Goren, Lilly J. (2009). You've Come A Long Way, Baby: Women, Politics, and Popular Culture. The University Press of Kentucky. pp. 160, 166–173. ISBN 978-0-8131-2544-2.
  • Griffin, Sean, ed. (2009). Hetero: Queering Representations of Straightness. Horizons of Cinema. State University of New York Press. pp. 218–225. ISBN 978-1-4384-2617-4.
  • King, Geoff (2009). "Working both ends: Miramax, from Shakespeare in Love to Kill Bill". Indiewood, USA: Where Hollywood meets Independent Cinema. International Library of Cultural Studies. I. B. Tauris. pp. 93–140. ISBN 978-1-84511-825-9.
  • Lavin, Maud (2010). "Violence: Kill Bill and Murder Girls". Push Comes to Shove: New Images of Aggressive Women. The MIT Press. pp. 106–155. ISBN 978-0-262-12309-9.
  • McGee, Patrick (2006). "Conclusion: Kill Bill, or Why Shane Always Comes Back". From Shane to Kill Bill: Rethinking the Western. New Approaches to Film Genre. Wiley–Blackwell. pp. 235–243. ISBN 978-1-4051-3965-6.
  • Ng, Jenna (2005). "Cinephilia, Homage and Kill Bill". In de Valck, Marijke; Hagener, Malte (eds.). Cinephilia: Movies, Love and Memory. Film Culture in Transition. Amsterdam University Press. pp. 65–82. ISBN 978-90-5356-769-2.
  • Park, Jane Chi Hyun (2010). Yellow Future: Oriental Style in Hollywood Cinema. University Of Minnesota Press. pp. 137, 143, 153–159. ISBN 978-0-8166-4979-2.
  • Smith, Jim (2004). "Kill Bill: Volume One (2003)". Gangster Films. Virgin Film. Virgin Books. ISBN 978-0-7535-0838-1.
  • Young, Alison (2009). The Scene of Violence: Cinema, Crime, Affect. Routledge–Cavendish. pp. 66–70. ISBN 978-0-415-49071-9.

I'll be able to get some faster than others, because some are at libraries that are closer to me than others. I may be able to get access to some of the others online via Google Books or whatever, but these are the ones I can physically get to. (When I go on vacation, I could possibly check the libraries out there and see if I can get different ones, but that's unlikely.) So I can concentrate on these sources, but if you've already got some of them and don't want me to worry about some, let me know. — Hunter Kahn 16:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Hey Erik. So, I'm about to go on my vacation, and I had hoped to get some of these books beforehand so I could get to work on it during the vacation. It looks now like I won't be able to do that (These books are all at colleges in my area where I need friends who I know that go there to check them out for me. I can go to the college libraries and just camp out there and read the books, which I will eventually do as well, but didn't get a chance to do so before vacation.) So I likely won't be able to work on this until I get back from vacation. Sorry again about that; I feel bad about the slow (non-existent) pace at which I've been doing this, but I'm still bound and determined to jump on this ASAP. (I just rewatched the movies last night and am now especially psyched to work on the articles! :) ) — Hunter Kahn 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erik/Archive_24&oldid=1141769280"