User talk:Nehrams2020/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Nehrams2020, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia	How to edit a page
Help pages	Tutorial
How to write a great article	Manual of Style
Copyright Information	User Page Info

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page.

Thanks

for the compliment on Jackson. I will keep it up. I noticed you working on that page, too. JackO'Lantern 07:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hello,it seems that you live around Atwater.I wanted to kno if you knew anything about the American School of Aviation based in Atwater,if you do it would be a great help to me. Prateek01 08:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks a lot,that really was helpful,i know this might irritate you but how exactly do you get there,i mean is this airport used by airliners?I know somebody in San Diego and was wondering if it is possible to go to Atwater from there,or maybe even Los Angeles and San Jose.Prateek01 08:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about your userbox - I don't why people have such a problem with userboxes, but sometimes it really seems like they're winning... Oh well, thanks againDev920 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Amazing

You have no idea what a help you have been to me,thanks a lot.Wont forget this.Again,Thank You.Prateek01 08:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jackson

lol, sorry if I spoiled you reverting fun. I don't check up on the page. I put it on my Watchlist (see the "Watch" button at the top right of the page), so any recent changes made there show up on my Watchlist. JackO'Lantern 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions about uploading pictures

I have had that problem when my image file does not have an appropriate extension on the filename. You can only upload images in certain formats such as .gif, .jpg, .svg and .png. There may be others but I'm not sure. So your file name has to have the the matching extension for the file type such as image.jpg, or linedrawing.svg or colorblock.png or animation.gif. If you try to upload an image with a filename and no extension such as image. then you will see that error. Hope this solves your problem. -Nv8200p talk 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

blocking

Hello. Only an Admin who has been appointed via Requests for adminship can block, otherwise people would just start blocking each other simply for having arguments if they didn't agree with the content, or worse still, vandals would block proper editors. Regards,ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Date links

This is regarding the article Coyote Ugly (film). Please note that according to Wikipedia's guidelinies regarding date formatting, "simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so." These should only be linked if they're part of a full date with day & month, as in December 28 2005. If they occure alone, just December or just 2005 or just December 2005, they shouldn't be linked. Also, links to "year-in-x" articles should not be piped with just the year (See WP:PIPE). --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Comedy Films answer

First of all, thank you for separating the films into years - it's necessary, but tedious work! To answer your question: Actually, I think that the division into shorts and feature films is very important, especially in the 1920s and 1930s - after all, some comedians like Harold Lloyd filmed hundreds of short one-or-two-reel comedies. Most of these were comparatively simple and unrefined, meant to be played for a week or two and then replaced with the next one. I certainly wouldn't want these to be dumped together with their comedy feature films, which were a lot more refined (Charlie Chaplin spent close to four years filming The Gold Rush, for example). The transition to feature-length films marked a major artistic turning point for many of the comedians of the early years of films (see Chaplin's The Kid, or Lloyd's Grandma's Boy), and I think that it is important that the two be separated to avoid clogging up the list of feature films. That this makes the table of contents longer is unfortunate, but it is, in my opinion, by far the lesser evil. Esn 03:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing the years into sub-headings might be a good idea. It would make the table of contents incredibly long, of course, so I don't know. That might be best brought up on the discussion page. I wonder if there's a way to have a separate mini-TOC for every section - one for 1930s, one for 1940s, etc. That way we could have sub-headings for years, and not have an extremely long TOC at the beginning of the page (instead, you'd have to click twice to get to the year you want).

One thing I just thought of about the short films/feature films question - because most people will want to look for feature films rather than short films, it might be better to simply move the short films section beneath the feature films section, so that it will appear at the bottom of the TOC. Perhaps this whole conversation should just be moved to the discussion board, though... I think I'm just going to repeat most of what I said here for the benefit of other users. :) Esn 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello Nehrams. Thank you for gracious statement in my Editor review, as although you did not participate in the my RfA, it was quoted by many RfA participants and strongly contributed to the overwhelming and flattering result in my RfA of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need help with admin related tasks, feel free to ask me - and of course, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. Of course, I look forward to working with you in the future. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

I appreciate your comment about my user page! I've worked hard on it! --Tuspm 10:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Naming episodes

Can we add some guidelines for naming TV eps in the wikiproject TV eps? this is basically my criteria But if that's going to be valid (or not) it should be explain tn this page (the article, not in the talk page).

My vote is for Not using parenthesis clarification, if there is nothing else called that way (as everything else works on wikipedia if there is no disambiguation). That's also informative, as readers can infer whether the title of the episode comes from something else or it is a cultural reference..--T-man, the wise 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Naming

If there is no disambiguation, the name of the article should be the episode title written with the corresponding capital letters.

Examples (from Lost):

• All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues
• Raised by Another

When disambiguation is needed, the name will also include a parenthesis clarification with the title of the series.

Examples:

• The Romans (Doctor Who)
• Tabula Rasa (Lost)

This helps to identify cultural references in episode titles.

---

Is this ok? If not, change the details bothering you. Thanks a ton, man.--T-man, the wise 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD listing for Alex Price

Hey, you made a mistake in listing Alex Price at AfD. I tagged it for speedy deletion and removed the listing, so no big deal. If I'd noticed the msg you left on the article's talk page, I would have walked you through properly listing it. Just try following the steps at WP:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion for next time. Feel free to drop me a line if you have trouble the next time. Cheers!--Kchase T 20:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I was wrong, too. The page is being repeatedly vandalized by converting it to a version for some totally non-notable Alex Price.--Kchase T 01:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben Stiller

Thanxs for the motivation! I got lucky and spotted the extra || on my first try (it usually takes a while to scan each line). Have fun editing! =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template merger

Would you be interested in merging the following templates together: Template:User Airplane! (which I created) and Template:User Shirley (which you created)? I ask this because we both like the movie Airplane! and we are dealing with different lines on the same sketch shown below:

Ted Stryker (Robert Hays): Both pilots!

Dr. Rumnack (Leslie Nielsen): Mr. Stryker. You've got to land this plane.

Stryker: Well surely you can't be serious? (Template:User Airplane! has "Surely this user can't be serious?")

Rumnack: I am serious. And don't call me Shirley (Template: User Shirley has "This user is serious. And don't call him Shirley.").

Would it make more sense to combine this? Your thoughts on this. Please advise. Chris 12:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Below is the propsed merged template I created from earlier today shown below:

{{User Airplane! test}}

AP	"Surely this user can't be serious?"

It basically combines your category, my category, with the DVD cover, my quote, and your background.

• I adjusted the picture size from 70px to 42px. You can use it as Template:User Airplane!. I will put up Template:User Airplane! test and Template:User Shirley for deletion in order to eliminate the confusion among the three templates. Chris 12:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review. Thanks. Chris 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:User Shirley

Template:User Shirley has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.Chris 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa

Thanks for pointing out the messed up wordage on my userpage. It would probably be there until the end of eternity otherwise. Also—did you really go to the Vatican? I'm officially jealous. Amphytrite 04:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiFilms

The master list of films is here. Also continue to add {{FilmsWikiProject}} to the talk pages because if the new template gets favored the banner you put up will change but you won't have to redo it. Andman8 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism error

Oops sorry about the Drew Carey mistake... I made the correction and i didn't realize there was a bot on the page... i thought there was something fishy afoot when i refreshed and it took a long time... I will try and be more viligant in the future. I am interested in fighting vandalism, any advice would be awesome. Thanks, --Tobyw87 04:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

SoaP

Sorry about the cite mixup...I got rid of it. Subwayguy 21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

SoaP Citation

I'll add the source right now, this is the article I am getting all those edits from (technically it was an auction to all 30 studios and they all rejected it). http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06228/713732-254.stm Let me know if I can help out in any other way. Hholt01 08:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Jackson

I am sticking to the page for the duration. As for GA, Kevin Spacey (also see Val Kilmer - not a GA but close) would be a good example to follow. The majority of GA's and the one FA I have worked for are on actors with relatively short career spans, which isn't the case for Jackson. I think there is a lot to cover there even for a GA. A prime factor would be the critical reception - i.e. the section, currently unsourced, that talks about his performance style - would need to be expanded/sourced with more critical opinions. The GA takers would demand we remove a few of the pics and provide fair use rationals for the rest (see the pics on Mandy Moore for pic rational examples). The early life section isn't bad. Probably the best one. The "other work" and "personal life" may have to be mellowed in to more of a flowing paragraph rather than just a few sort-of unrelated sentences. As for FA.... We would need to cover in detail a lot more of his career than we have. I.e. spend even a few sentences on each of his very influential films, etc. Mad Jack 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Films Assessment

I answered on my talk page. Sorry for the late answer, but I was away from computer for a week AdamSmithee 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

San Diego picture of homeless man

Hi Nehrams2020. I edited out the photograph of a homeless man in San Diego, just added by you to the article on Homelessness, the image in question being "Image:HomelessManWithSign.jpg" ... It seemed to be very NPOV and also seemed to be in bad taste and poking fun at the homeless which doesn't feel right for the topic and article's NPOV. There are also too many images, as was argued by other editors over time. You can leave comments on the article's discussion page Talk:Homelessness where I have left these same comments. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nehrams2020. Thanks for your kind reply. I think it is a very good photograph, and in certain contexts would be brilliant and even quite humourous. Me, personally, I think it is a bit complicated on a very hot button-pressing topic, at least for now, all things being equal. On the main Homelessness article. There has been a huge discussion of its American point of view, and lack of international prespective, which we are still trying to work on as a WP community, editing, and also that there were too many NPOV evocative photos ! See earlier versions. After all that, we under discussion, removed some photographs, and left some very hopefully neutral ones. There is also the sub-article, Homelessness in the United States, and that might or might not yet be appropriate. The implication which could be drawn from the picture is that homeless people (and we don't know the person in the photo is homeless) panhandle for drink and substances. Some or many do. Others don't. It's morally messy, I posit. Walking, we all are, on thin ice in writing and editing the article. I've put it up for discussion on the article's page. Let's, as a community, see how it goes. For me, I think it has implications and could be taken the wrong way, not as you meant it. Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve Carell

The 40-Year-Old Virgin poster was tagged with {{poster}}, which states that the image may only be used in articles which:

   * illustrates the movie in question or
   * provides critical analysis of the poster content or artwork

...neither of which applies to the Steve Carell article.

The Little Miss Sunshine image is tagged with the {{promophoto}}, which states that the image may only be used in articles which illustrates:

   * the person(s), product, event, or subject in question

Steve Carell is the person, so said picture is eligible for the article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment Types

Refering to the actors/directors pages, those are not a part of WikiProject Films. I was just wondering that and User:Supernumerary and I agreed that they were not included here. Most of your other questions about the classes can be answered here. But, about the film characters, I'll get back to you soon. Cbrown1023 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Film character pages should be kept tagged and assessed like normal articles. Cbrown1023 00:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Equestrian

What are you doing changing the Olympic boxes to Men's and Women's Equestrian as you have done so with Mark Todd ‎and Virginia Leng ? There is are NO separate men's and women's equestrian competion's in show jumping, dressage and eventing, men and women complete equally together in the one competion of their choosen discipline. You should have a little knowledge of these horse sports before changing anything.

WikiProject {{dab}}

Hiya, Thanks for the message, but unfortuanetly I'm no longer a member of WikiProject Disambiguation Link Repairs. Although, the barnstar looks good =).. Sorry I couldn't help --Deon555^talk_Review 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nehrams, Thanks for the message. It's hard stuff, it took me quite a while.. basically it just reports what ever is on User:Deon555/Status. You can edit it manually (quite easy, takes 5-10 mins to set up), or using buttons in your toolbox or up next to your name, talk, preferences links etc. The first way is explained at WP:STATUS. The second way, you have to use another WP'ians code. Essjay has written one, Topaz has written one.. I use Topaz's one, and if you leave him a message here, I'm sure he'll be able to help you :) --Deon555^talk_Review 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

I dunno. It sounds like it might be a lot of work keeping them updated, but it might work. But the fact that you had to spam talk pages to get answers may not be a sign of support. I dunno. I'm gonna be busy for the next two months, so can't really help (but will answer messages). Good luck!--Ling.Nut 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I just re-added and fixed a link on Hybrid kernel (was undesirably linking to Executive disambig) before you removed it. I personally prefer links to disambiguation pages than removal, as at least they show extra information, and can be fixed, unlike a removed link. Even a link to an unwritten article is better IMHO. anyhow, I helped in that way, regards Widefox 14:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Executive oddity

I found the Australian residue in your dabbing of Executive, so I asked at the WP:VPT, they answered and the problem is now fixed. See WP:VPT#What links here oddity for reference. Cheers! --Storkk 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Nehrams2020 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your project proposal & its relevant discussion

hey Nehrams2020,

Whatever became of your proposal to put "adopted by" templates on dab pages?

I thought I saw one extended discussion, but now I can't find it. I wanted to respond to someone who said he saw no reason to advertise the fact that he has adopted a page... where is that discussion?

Thanks!--Ling.Nut 12:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Film genres

Could it be you are looking for this Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts#Film_genres, or am I off subject? Hoverfish 20:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's try to keep track of as many such listings as we can find. One thing that I want to ask: up top on the List of films page there is an old decision to keep the page. The argument against was that there is a parallel such listing going on in Categories:film etc. Have you checked this section? Is it being updated? How inclusive is it? If you haven't investigated, let me know what you know about it and I'll try to find out. Hoverfish 05:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC) --Now about the new list, let's keep it ordered in simple general groups, like comedy, action, drama, biographic. If we go too far in sub groups, members might get a bad time searching. I still think that if we add some abbreviations after each film, maybe with a different color each, one might be able to look through one or two listings and locate easily his favorite choice. like this we could mark highly awarded films, top grossing, Italian, French or German cinema, and so on. On top we could have a box listing all the abbreviations. So in the comedy list one can locate easily a country or a popular item, or even a cult etc. What do you say? Hoverfish 06:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Before you go, one question more. Believe it or not, I still haven't understood if you are talking about an all inclusive list of existing film articles, or if you are proposing a list for films without articles. Let me know so I can get to work on it in my notebook soon. Right now I am trying to figure out what to do with the additional lists of unsigned user 205.188.117.73, who seems to be putting quite some work on creating tables sorted by release date. I can't post him a thing because he is IP... Hoverfish 19:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So, supposing it braches off the "Lists of films", this is how it could be (I am now on a very stage, but the sooner you give feedback, the better it may turn out evolving): My Sandbox. Hoverfish 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Checked lists

Hi again, I'm not sure what you are doing in the earlier years. Are you bringing in films or are you checking the year's entries? I have checked till now (release year of each film, moved films to their year, all links and pipes) all lists from 1975-2002 and placed a <!-- This list was checked on DD MMM. '06-->. IF you happen to check a list by year, please add such a note up top. If not, no problem: I am moving backwards in years checking. Hoverfish 08:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anywhere stated that lists of films shouldn't contain red links? Hoverfish 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about checking the lists by year. I have checked from 1960 to 2004 (03 and 04 I had to copy to another editor, because they are full of tables and need some "find and replace" to go faster). Links, pipes and correct release are 99% ok now. Today I'm going down the 50's. I am not checking on film articles' templates. I just point out if they are non-film articles. Red links can be mistaken names for existing articles. I check all possible names, external sources for release years and other titles, and in many cases I find an article under another title. So, after this initial checking, red links will be moved to a list of their own, arranged in decades and at the bottom of each year's list, I will include a link to it. If you check in my Sandbox, I've added some more explanations in the "red" list. It will serve three aims: 1- to check for other titles that have an entry, 2- to add films with no article and 3- to "adopt films". As I am working the lists, I think of ways to make it more presentable, easy to use and usefull. Hoverfish 07:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Script warning

Whenever i hit one of the lists by letter, I have to wait a while before I can do anything, until a warning about an unresponsive script comes out. I guess this is because the list is getting too long. Do others also have this problem? Hoverfish 20:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

By other delays I don't get script warning. Anyway... do you think we should split the list to more letters, or am I talking about big problems? Hoverfish 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS

I replied to your post about WP:FILMS here. Cbrown1023 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The grading process leaves a lot of room for interpretation right now. We just need a quick assessment on the stance of the article. The main question is normally, can it be expanded? Articles that use a stub template are almost always a stub but can sometimes be start (I know you know that). The rest are up for interpretation on how much can be expanded, like Riddick I would probably give a B because it is pretty long and has a lot of information (for a character). It also appears that it can't be further expanded that much.

You are removing the template from non-film-character pages, that is very good and is the same thing that Supernumerary and I are doing (so it is :) ).

Saida and Tim would be stubs (but it doesn't matter because they will be merged soon anyway) and Tony and Wilson would probably be start or stub.

Just remember... right now it is basically whatever you think, use your best judgement on how much it can be expanded. Cbrown1023 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sheena

I'm think start class rather than stub class. There's a lot of material here, and various multi-paragraph sections. Of course, I'd like to see editors expand it; I'm just not sure it looks like stubs as defined by those I've seen. In any event, it's good to see interest in the article!--Tenebrae 02:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

List by letter link table

Please, check it out anl let me know if it's OK. I didn't make it in template form, like the table for the years, because I know very little on templates: User:Hoverfish/Notebook . Hoverfish 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think the list by number should only contain titles that (as an article title) start with digits, not with spelled numbers. Why did you include them? Hoverfish 19:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've aired our suggestions in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Lists_of_films_and_of_red_films. I hope I mentioned things according to what you feel is needed. Let me know. Hoverfish 08:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I figured if no one bothers with commenting on the split, it may be because of its connection with "lots of work", so if it stays there for a few days we can go ahead. I also don't like to appear as if I took over a list, but essentially all we take over is the work needed to be done. Someone recently posted something on those who take all the load of the "boring" work. I always find that doing the "boring work" is the best way to get things done. Hoverfish 09:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, let's start making our move, maybe by contacting some admin. I have big problems to work in the list by letter, since this script thing is making quite some delays every time I come in them, or back to them after an edit or search. Do you know any admin I could ask? Hoverfish 08:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am in contact with some admins (I just noticed by looking at their pages). I will ask. But before I dump on someone else the whole thing, I should understand all its parts. Dividing the list into smaller lists is easy. Redirecting all the links is the problem. I'd need to apply for one of those automated wiki browsers and give them long lists of "find and replace" routines. Depending on their speed, I might manage to rename some hundreds of links per day. So first I would start by creating List of films: A, I would go through all the A links, replacing List of films: A-D, then B, etc. It is a long process unless there are faster ways to do this (than AWB). But it's split in single letters, so even if it goes slow, all the rest of the links will still be pointing to the right place. If you know I miss something, let me know, please. Hoverfish 09:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the discussion on splitting the lists: User_talk:Cburnett#Splitting_of_very_long_lists. I will follow the suggestion, unless you have some other idea. Just tell me when to start. Hoverfish 14:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo request for Royal Tenenbaum

Please take a look at the history of the Royal Tenenbaum article and decide if you really want to request a photograph. It doesn't seem worth it to me. Miss Dark 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Trafic

Would the poster that I put up suffice for your photo request for the Trafic article? Esn 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

For both of you fellows, I've been flirting with this article and still intend to work on it. The poster is fine. Hoverfish 08:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

Thank you for that barnstar! I feel that you definately deserve one as well.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your assessment of WP:FILMS's many many many articles and contributions to List of films. Cbrown1023 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! It sure feels good to know where the project stands. Also as Cbrown1023 pointed out you certainly contributed to the effort.--Supernumerary 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

hmmm?

Hi Nehrams2020,

You blanked out all the adopted pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages, without any discussion on Talk. What's on your mind?

Thanks--Ling.Nut 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! You just moved them.. That'll teach me to wait 10 or 15 minutes! :-) Thanks --Ling.Nut 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, I'm still trying to figure out what just happened. I was using popups.. and I swear, it looked to me like:

1. You had blanked out a section (not the whole page)
2. It just happened moments ago,

Plus now it looks like Tkynerd has reverted the page not once but twice... hmmm.. well it'll sort itself out in the end.. Thanks for all your hard work!!!--Ling.Nut 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning templates

Hello. I noticed we were reverting the same vandals. Thanks for the help. One thing you might want to consider, though is using {{subst:test4}} rather than {{Final warning}}. Both indicate that if they continue to vandalize, they will be blocked, but the Final warning template indicates that they would be blocked indefinitely. Slight difference, but significant. Happy editing! SWAdair 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the lists

I just wanted you to know I added a message in the above discussion, in case it got overshadowed by next messages. (I'm not in a hurry for an answer.) Hoverfish 12:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. I had been waiting for your OK first. Tonight though I have promissed some work in the film collaboration, which I have started off article. I will copy each letter in a page of its own (20 pages in all). During this time, nothing else needs to be done. When I have all the pages created, we can temporarily redirect each of the four lists to the section of Lists of films "By number and letter" where the link table will be (or is this not practical?). Then we can divide the work of redirecting. I have some domestic problems, which don't permit me to promiss exact times in advance, but I will be generally cooperating with you in the transition. Let me know also if each of the 20 pages should have some text or instructions before the list starts. Tomorrow I will create as many of the new pages as I can (maybe all) and will let you know when I'm ready. Hoverfish 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As said, tomorrow I will just be copying to new pages, so no hurry yet. Then Wednesday I am looking forward to cooperating with you. I don't have your experience with all issues concerned, so I will probably be needing some advices. I think that no one would be jumping on you (or us) for anything. From what I understand (unless I have missed some past incident) your contributions are very appreciated in the project. And by the way, my time here is around 1:40 AM right now. Hoverfish 00:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I created the pages. I also looked at some what-links-here. I suggest that where all 4 letter lists are given as links, the links should turn to point at the Lists of films#By letter & number. In film Se7en it can simply go away. In each of the 20 pages, instead of giving links in each one for the other 19, there should also be a link to Lists of films up in the top. Is there a template that makes it point "back to". I tried in D to make it with <small> tags, but it doesn't look good. Or should we create an additional page with all 20 links in a list and some general comments (ommited the and a in alphabetization, digits and numbers in text, etc)? In years by film it is so, but in this case it may not be necessary. Hoverfish 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to wish you good luck with your test. I hope it all goes well. No hurry. At the most there may be a few new entries to copy to the new lists. I am also doing some renoveling downstairs, so I hope I can be at it along with you at 8 pm my time, but it may not be till 10 pm (I'm 9 hours later here). Hoverfish 11:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm ready for work now. I have received help from Cbrunett, if you want to see, it's here*. It seems I did less mistakes than I thought. Let me know how I can coordinate with you. Hoverfish 20:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If we delete them all the edit history will be gone. See please the above mentioned discussion and maybe you understand better than me the matter. Hoverfish 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's ok that you removed it. I was thinking if someone is in a hurry he could just give us a hint about the year so we could do the linking. The worst is when the year is added linked to the plain year article, so I added unlinked, so that the link is obviously missing. Now as for where to place it, I must admit I'm not sure. If we add it to the 20 pages, it should be as short as possible (it's not all that long anyway). Another thought I had, but gave it up, was to create a main (linking and guidelining) page for the 20 pages. You idea is not bad. We could add it to the talk pages, leave the short intro (which says the entries should have articles or adequate sections) and state that quidelines are in the Talk page (or even link to it). I leave this to you. Glad that you liked my changes. Hoverfish 08:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, since we will have it many times anyway, we might as well put it in the article page. Like this it will catch the eye of the newcomers. The only point I see, is that "S" is already about 74 KB and is bound to become much longer soon. Do you think we should split it in "S-Sj" and "Sk-Sz"? Hoverfish 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Anytime you decide on this split of S, I'm ready to do the editing (on the article pages, unless you object). Hoverfish 20:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I go for keeping S as it is. I have some delay getting in, but no script warnings. And the guidelines in the Talk pages, apart from the naming section (skip articles etc). This may be useful on the article side. What do you say? Hoverfish 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I start then. I need something serial to relax a bit from searching through filmographies and adding films to the years (got lots of them). Hoverfish 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My server went down. In the meanwhile I simplified the intro for the article pages and added the section on sorting. OK?

I am just thinking that instead of adding all the guidelines on each page's talk, we could template the guidelines and just include the template in the letters and numbers. In this way we change one page and it changes in 21 pages. Do I just edit Template:Guidelines for adding new entries or is it only for administrators to do? Hoverfish 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC) --Done (without template). I will ask about creating a template. Hoverfish 23:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Welcome Note

Thank you Nehrams2020 for such a heartfelt welcoming into the Wikipedia community. --D 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping me learn how to join Wikipedia and guiding me

Assessment department !

Wow, thanks for the tip! It's like finding the way into the Unseen University, if you are into Pratchett-lore. But how can the list be near complete when I keep finding random unmarked films? Hoverfish 23:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I add the film template on the article page and the FilmWikiProject|class= template on the Talk page. Recently I keep finding that even Film|class= has the same effect, but are they the same template? Sometimes there is the template with class=stub on the talk page and no film-stub on the article. Are both needed in stubs? I will keep looking in the lists of my favorite directors, because I am very non-mainstream in my tastes usually and this turns out to be useful here. When I am done I think I will follow the by letter lists for comparing with the years. There is where the year's link comes handy, so I will take it that you have checked for year (as per article or imdb) and follow years stated in the list. I turn off pictures and go through articles to confirm till now, but I will be facing quite a mountain there. I am also warming up the issue of creating the list of films only mentioned in articles (blue links), where the question of whether a film is covered enough or not, in order to claim the link can be set. When I start it I will update the guidelines in the lists to include it. Template quests for tomorrow. Till then. Hoverfish 00:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines became template and the intro went in the letter navigation template too. I am starting to get the hang of it now. Saves some wikipedia space too. Hoverfish 08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is on a mission from dog....

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as The Blues Brothers (film). Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

TheMadBaron 08:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

List by numbers intro

I think in this list, we should write separately an intro. Sorting by number is one issue (not immediately apparent to a new user) and for films like Thirteenth Floor, it should be clear that they are also entered under "T" (but where is the priority - I would say in T). Hoverfish 09:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should mention very clearly (and not only in guidelines) where a person should enter a film starting by "7" and a film starting by "Seven". We can't seriously expect users to enter films 3 times, or even 2. If we want to keep two different sortings and include numbers as text, we are making it very unfriendly for input-users, although more friendly for searching-users.

It takes also more effort to maintain this list (and the other lists if for example a film "Fourty days..." is only entered here -and why not, since it's the fisrt one comes across). What do you think about this points? Hoverfish 17:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, since you signed in for the collaboration, this is my tribute: (me as Jake). Hoverfish 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mission calling

Hey Nehrams2020, Mission's calling. We are being commented as "very low partissipatin'". Are we going to walk in on last moment, like brothers Jake and Elwood, and sweep the show, or how? I'm unexperienced and have no sources. Also searches for Blues Brothers bring up so much that it's hard to find any serious references. Any clues? Hoverfish 22:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for more SDSU images

Hey, do you think that you could get a nice image of the new SDSU Extension and Copley Telecommunications buildings on the SDSU campus? I would like to finally finish the SDSU articles on these subjects? If not, I am going to come down over the holiday break to see a basketball game or two and that might be a good time for photographs. Streltzer 17:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, is the Student Health Services building finally done yet? Streltzer 17:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

remove category

Hi Nehrams, I think we should remove category Lists of films from the old lists (A-D, E-I, etc) so that they don't display in Category:Lists of films. I tweeked the category in each letter, so now they are up front. The old lists just clutter the category page and are basically just dab pages. I also checked the list of 2004 in film today, which was previously left half-checked and was full of films of 2003 and 2002. Soon I will have ready the 2005 comprehensive list. If you want to update the 2005 in film, please do it here* instead, until I check for release dates. Then I will create the new section. Have you seen the style of the tables in the later years now? How does it look? Hoverfish 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove them soon. By the way, the corrections and additions I made in the lists by letters are only some films from the later years' lists that were placed in the wrong year (or had redirects, etc). No thorough check. Hoverfish 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Posterdeckthehalls.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Posterdeckthehalls.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Fritz S. (Talk) 19:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the Film Barnstar, Nehrams. 49, 19, are just numbers for me. I never developed an attitude of over 19, so what the heck, I let time be and it lets me be too. Internet is great, but Wikipedia is the best of it. Hoverfish 07:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Black-xmas-poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Black-xmas-poster.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I Am Legend teaser poster

I'm not certain about the validity of the I Am Legend poster. Both teaser posters seem to have Will Smith copied and pasted onto both backgrounds (with one background being a Mustang, WTF). Do you mind me reverting the image until other sources start presenting/confirming it? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Per this update, I'll be reverting. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to prefer http://www.impawards.com/ for movie posters. :) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)