User talk:Erik/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Differences from the original in The Mist

I saw that you reverted my addition to The Mist (film), which pointed out that in the original story it was never revealed what created the mist, but in the film (according to the trailer) the source was revealed in a sequence which did not occur in the original story. Since it's a matter of pointing out that certain information exists in one source but does not exist in another, it seemed pretty cut and dried to me. It's easily verifiable -- anyone can look at the trailer or read the story. I can't cite a page number in the story because the sequence does not exist there, and it might be a bit awkward to cite mm:ss for the trailer. But WP:OR does not say that synthesis cannot be used; only that it cannot be used to promote a position. If it could never be used, then we would have to go through every article on television shows and remove any references linking to pop culture (example) because no external source pointed it out regardless of how obvious the innuendo is, parody or otherwise. Given these considerations, I was wondering what, if anything, would be needed to back this addition up in accordance with standing policy? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"original thought" includes comparing two sources on your own. You must have someone else do the comparison for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Even then, it would be more pertinent to the short story's article than it would be to the film's article--because the film is an adaptation of the book, not the other way around.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it should go in the story article instead, that would be fine. But again, see the example I provided. The comparison is obvious, and although no source is provided, it was not stripped from the article. If that is acceptable, then I don't see how this is not. Am I not telling the truth in the content I added? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "obvious" it is. If it's something like "source X says that 9 out of every 10 doctors approve drug Y", and you say "90% of doctors approve drug Y"---it's obvious that 9 out of 10 is 90%...then you cannot compare on your own. You are creating an original thought by comparing two subjects on your own. Simple as that. You must have someone else do the comparison for you. Otherwise, what is the relevance of the comparison? It becomes not only an original though, but indiscriminate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are limitless differences between a source material and its film adaptation. It's original research for editors to pick and choose without the verifiability of reliable sources. It's completely possible to do this without picking out indiscriminate details. Take a look at examples found at Fight Club (film)#Writing, Road to Perdition#Writing, The Seeker (film)#Writing. All these sections have real-world context verified by reliable sources about why adaptations were written the way they were, often in comparison with the source material. For The Mist, if there are important distinctions between the short story and the film adaptation, they will be verified by reliable sources and can be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That I can accept. I suppose a better example I could have provided was The Bourne Identity -- no sources are provided there, either, but it still documents significant changes (such as real-life antagonist Ilich Ramírez Sánchez being imprisoned for life between the time of the novel and the film, eliminating him from the film entirely). In the case of The Mist, the differences are clear, but these are still trailers and the movie has yet to be released. Still, since these are significant deviations from the original, I'm sure that they will be brought to mention closer to the time of the film's release. I suppose once the film has been released and a more detailed plot summary can be provided that such an addition would also be more appropriate per WP:WEIGHT -- looking back, it was a bit premature to write such a section to be longer than the actual plot summary. I'll try back in a month. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have Google Alerts set up to pick up news headlines for The Mist, so I'm sure there will be comparisons made. I'll see about placing such headlines on the film article's talk page -- I've done so at Talk:Sunshine (2007 film)#Potentially usable headlines, Talk:Stardust (2007 film)#Headlines, and Talk:3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)#Headlines. (The latter two definitely has some headlines to compare the source materials to their film adaptations; just a matter of taking the time to implement them into the articles.) I've seen some "Differences" sections like in the example you gave, but the issue is a vacancy of real-world context due to lack of secondary sources. Primary sources are meant to provide context for secondary sources about said topic; that's why per WP:PLOT, plot summaries (to an extent) are acceptable to give a reader unfamiliar with the topic some background. For a subtopic like differences, it's a much more worthy approach to use reliable sources to provide the reason for such changes between a source material and the film adaptation. Keep an eye on the talk page for The Mist -- I'll see about putting headlines there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

X-Files sequel

You might want to keep an eye on this one if you aren't already - I only mention it because the press release was a front-page link on Yahoo, so there might be people eager to split it again, probably in ignorance of NF. Girolamo Savonarola 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been a bit busy lately with academics. You can see that a good portion of my clean-up went well. I'll have to go through letters P through Z sometime in the future, though... too much on my plate for heavy editing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of your clean-up, I haven't forgotten about helping to clean out the red links; it's just my time online has been limited to short bursts (not entirely suited to the task) these last few days. I should be able to get back on the horse tomorrow. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Bond cast experiment

It's ok, it was just for fun. I think the linear tables used at James Bond film series is perfectly fine. I have two Bond books from the library, which I could use to improve the article. It's a GA that must have been promoted ages ago. Alientraveller 18:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, it'd be another unique take on one of the most difficult things to make look good. Obviously, a reader will always want to know where they've seen someone before, but you've also got to balance the articleness. Anyway, hope you edit a lot more very soon. Alientraveller 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK?

Do you think Kirsten Sheridan is too short to yield a DYK? Cheers, Melty girl 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! It was shorter than the guidelines suggested, so I wanted to see if you'd found that that was strict or not. --Melty girl 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Duh, why was I doing a word count?!  :) --Melty girl 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

Eh, the only thing I don't like is saying "it looks similar", as that comes off as more of an "I'm not positive" instead of "it was meant to be".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Italics in references

Erik, you suggested to me that I "italicize newspapers" per WP:MOS and I did that on the American Gangster (film) article, but then you removed the italics. In your edit summary you wrote "Unnecessary italics; if they were required, the Cite news template would be set up to automatically italicize publishers." WP:CITE says "Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online." At that guideline, I see that Scientific American is not italicized in the Harvard example, but is italicized in the footnotes example. I notice that the {{cite news}} template automatically italicizes the work field, which is for "a column, sub part of issue, or a multi-part work such as a magazine title." The {{cite web}} template also automatically italicizes the work field, which is for "a book, periodical or website, name of that work." I suppose I am confused as to when The Star-Ledger should be italicized. WP:ITALICS says italics should be used for "Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)." If I've read that guideline and the template documentation correctly, The Star-Ledger would appear as The Star-Ledger when in a paragraph, would be put in the publisher field in the {{cite news}} template and would appear as The Star-Ledger, and would be put in the work field in the {{cite web}} template and would appear as The Star-Ledger. Is that correct? I have used the {{cite web}} template in the past and put newspaper/magazine titles in the publisher field since I consider the newspaper/magazine the publisher of the information, although I guess they belong in the work field. Should I not worry about italicizing newspapers and magazines in references? --Pixelface 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Valkyrie (film)

Hi, I'm sorry to go on about the issue of Valkyrie (film), but I do think that it is important for readers to know where the title comes from and a little more about its connection to the real-life events. There is especially the fact that Valkyrie was not the plan to kill Hitler himself, but the means of taking over the country once he was dead. The central irony was that Hitler had himself approved of Operation Valkyrie, presumably (according to historians, not me) out of concern that foreign workers living in Germany itself might rise up and overthrow the regime. In fact, it was actual German nationals who were now planning to use Valkyrie as part of their coup. Is there any way for me to present a more detailed version of the title's origins without being constantly overruled? Thank you. --Marktreut 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You say that I have to "provide verifiable content via reliable sources about how and why the filmmakers implemented the title" and its connection to Operation Valkyrie. Well what else could be the link ? That some armour-wearing Norse woman warrior was somehow involved in the plot ? That's absurd. The statement in the Production section: "Valkyrie is titled after Operation Walküre ("Operation Valkyrie"), an operational codename in the film's plot" is rather vague. All I'm trying to do is give more details from the real-life historical point of view, that's all. And I do have verifiable sources as to Operation Valkyrie's origins and the connection to Hitler; which I have previously put in but which you and others have still taken out.--Marktreut 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, It's rather difficult to compress a suitable explanation to within just one sentence. Here's the best I can do and I have included my sources. If this meets with your approval then I will put it in: "Valkyrie is titled after Operation Walküre ("Operation Valkyrie"), a means by the army could impose martial law and take over the government in the event of trouble within Germany itself. Ironically, Hitler had himself approved the plan, presumably in the event of a revolt by foreign workers. The plotters, actually German nationals, intended to kill Hitler, implement Operation Valkyrie and make peace with the Allies \<ref\>Secret Germany by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, ISBN-10: 0099490064, ISBN-13: 978-0099490067\</ref\>, although Churchill had made it clear that nothing would be acceptable short of unconditional surrender \<ref\>Is Paris Burning? by Larry collins and Dominique Lapierre\</ref\>." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktreut (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads

Yeah, I glanced over the rest of the messages she had received, including the one from you about the lack of responses. I just figured it was worth a shot at preventing uploads that will replace ones that meet the criteria, and then they'll just end up getting deleted while the article loses an image. I'm starting to get a little annoyed with the constant messages from bots when a non-free image upload of mine gets orphaned due to vandalism or when an image has an "invalid FUR" due to an article's name be changed for disambiguation. But I'm fixing all of the occurrences, and I think I'm gaining a lot more messages since I've been reuploading many images that were too large and deleting the original, which means I get the messages. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. --Nehrams2020 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's up.

I've placed a link in the Hulk talk; tomorrow night I expect to put it up, unless there's major objection. ThuranX 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam Warning

You know, I was going to use the basic warning... then I thought again - the anonymous editor had put a link to a site where one could download an illegal copy of the movie, and that sort of thing really annoys me! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I Am Legend

I thought, why not, I have the sources. It sounds good, hope it's not too scary or gory for me though. Will Smith is one of my favourite actors. It bodes well, as I enjoyed his last contribution with Akiva Goldsman, I, Robot. The I must be a good luck charm. Alientraveller 18:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will Smith as a superhero? Yup, that was going to happen. An alcoholic one who everybody hates though? Well, that is interesting. Alientraveller 18:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Alientraveller 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of fair use images, does Image:Blueflower.jpg work for Batman Begins? Alientraveller 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it appears IAL was just the start of cleaning up the winter films I've developed an interest in. Cleaned up Sweeney Todd, I'm now turning my attention to Beowulf. Are you planning to see either? I hope Todd isn't too gory, and that Beowulf will be a good way to introduce a younger family member to the poem. Alientraveller 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman

I like to show how things like in development, at least in comparison to their finish. Production photos always seem to exhibit more real world tone than screenshots. The one you picked was from the DVD. I don't think there are any "free" images of the Batsuit. The promo might be the better one, but I don't plan to put any new image up until I have a chance to sit down and get all the information from the DVD to add that to the section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just looking for Batsuit images, I was still amazed by how much information was on the DVD. It will probably take some time to go through it all, but it should be worth it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, short of something major it should still be achievable. We just need to flesh out all those weak sections. That "Releases" section is really weak, and I don't know how we can strengthen it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to try and go through the DVD at some point and watch all those Docs. It should help to expand a lot of those sections. Oh, did you see this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely going to be interesting to see how that article turns out in the next few months. We certainly need to find some "free" images, because we cannot have any non-free images on the main page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have those two images of The Tumbler for BB, but I was thinking more for TDK. An image of Bale may be the only choice for that page if we cannot find something better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not, but we couldn't use Bale for both films, and if we cannot find a free one of Bale, the Tumbler may be the only thing we have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry, but if this Ted Newsom user really is Ted Newsom, I see why his script was never used--the man couldn't write to save his life. Are you witnessing the changes he's making to the Spider-Man page? The coding for the references is all screwed up--I won't go into the film series page, which I have taken off my watchlist as I saw him basically turn it into one of the worst written pages on Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot image anything of "quality writing", but I'm sure there are ones where it does. I wonder, with this Writers' Strike, will be seeing more and more writers working on Wikipedia articles until the strike is over??

Please Wikipedian Gods, please please please don't let this happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. See The Naked Monster for a prime example. ]http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=The_Naked_Monster&action=history To clarify].  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh* If only life could be so grand.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what Robin is failing to realize is that none of the TV Guide articles are providing dates or titles for those episodes, and the sources she provided on my talk page are all using "Kryptonsite" (a fansite, which isn't considered reliable sourcing).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh..lol. Thanks for finding that, I was actually looking for a source that I could add to the season 7 article. I contacted an Admin about this Robin situation. First, she only puts the sources in the edit summary, not in the article. Then, she ignores me every time I tell her that she's using either fansites, or user edited sites as sources. None of them are reliable. This is the same person that, every time she edits a Smallville article she removes all the commas from the dates, even after half a dozen editors have told her that MOS still wants them there for grammar reasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's like he's imagining a film, and using Batman Begins to fill in the gaps.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a hard time thinking that Admins are keeping a "list" of "mean" editors, but aren't going to the editors directly to say something first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought you were asking if I would review them for GAC, and I was reading them and going, "Erik did this?". Then I went over to the talk page and realized you meant review for GAR. I think you actually covered everything I saw that was wrong with the pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what's up with that one editor basically saying that if the article is delisted from GA status that he'll just make it GA again?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. If he thinks Batman Forever is a "solid article" then I'd love to see what he thinks of Batman Begins, or even The Dark Knight for that matter. They must be pure gold. ;) Speaking of FAs, some IP user dropped by Jason Voorhees to remove a weasely word that was present and left a comment on the talk page basically saying the article was horribly written and undeserving of FA status. They never returned to provide other examples of problems, when requested to do so. It just struck me as somewhat odd that their opinion appeared--at least on the surface--to be based on one sole weasely word that no one caught.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Erik? Hmm, interesting premise. If anyone could pull it off I'd put my money on you. I certainly couldn't do it. I don't need all that responsibility hanging over me, plus some people just annoy the hell out of me too much. I'm not saying I'd abuse my "powers" if I was, because I certainly wouldn't, but I can say that I wouldn't have the appropriate temperment to deal with people like Robin. I think you're much better at keeping cool.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! That's awesome about grad school. Actually, I hope I'm always considered a verifiabully. That's one insult I think every editor should strive to attain. I know what you mean, I have several sandboxes I need to finish working on and get closed out. Could you take a look at Friday the 13th (franchise) if you get a free moment? I have it up for GAC, but no one has attended to it. You don't need to review it for GAC if you don't want, I'm just hoping to get some criticism for it since Paul and I appear to be the only maintainers, so it's harder to find problems when you're that close.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the comic, novel, and game images. I put in two quoteboxes for the novel and comic sections. Do you think they're good enough to use?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice appreciated on Halo (film)

Hi, I've been planning to merge Halo (film) with Halo (series) for a while now, going so far as to create something offline which could be used, but I've held off for now due to the length of the latter. There's a lot of information about the film, plenty of it even verifiable, and merging the film into the series might make the length of that article rather excessive. Do you think this is a case in which WP:SUMMARY would be invoked over the recommendations of WP:NF, and a separate article actually justified? Thanks, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose the length isn't that excessive then. I was basing that upon a remembered guideline about trying to avoid taking articles above 32kb, but upon reading it now it seems that the issues this created have since been resolved. I'll have a crack at integrating the useful information into Halo (series) at some point, see how it goes. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those; I was originally planning a quick merge using the information already present, but they should come in useful for something more substantial than that - when I get around to doing it; I haven't had the chance to do it yet as my Wikipedia time these last couple of days has largely been spent on researching the appropriate edits required to help another article on its way to GA status (a project by no means complete). Thanks again, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 16:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, film articles are much easier to keep an eye on; the TV ones can be a little overwhelming, and I'm resolved to avoiding the articles for most of my favourite television shows, such as Buffy, Angel and Galactica, lest I end up spending even more time here than I do presently (plus, I've seen what some of the more rabid fans are like when you try to interfere with their article and I haven't the stomach for that fight right now). Babylon 5 is pretty much my one exception; fortunately, the creator has posted extensively online about the show since about 1991, talking extremely candidly about every aspect of the production. That leaves very little open to interpretation and thus makes maintaining the article easier than it might otherwise have been (which is why it was a surprise to see the state some of it was in only six months ago). Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweeney

Bring it on. Nothing disturbing about spurting blood, I've seen it all before in Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and 300, and if it's going to look as silly as it sounds, so be it. My only fear is that we see the actual pie-making process, which is the gruesome and gory part of it. Anyway, a trailer can do wonders for one's expectations. Why did I ever doubt Burton's eye for sweetly beautiful imagery? It's Victorian London for goodness sake, how much more Burton can you get?

Anyway, as for Beowulf, I'm curious, but as an animation fan I've always took to heart what Disney once said: that the key wasn't imitation, but reminding an audience of something. They may be barking up the wrong tree. Still, Zemeckis is brilliant and we're talking about one of the most influential tales in all fiction. So yeah, let me see those articles, some casting info would be nice. Alientraveller 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the dragon-load of articles. Alientraveller 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for that robot-load of articles! And Valkyrie looks amazing. Alientraveller 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Valkyrie (film)

And where is the Premise section that you mention when you, yet again, take out all references to the origins of the working title of this film? I do not see what the problem is. How many other "Valkyries" were involved that make it doubtful that my interpretation is not the right one? When a film is made based on real events it is helpful for people to know what those events were and where Operation Valkyrie came in. I'm trying to put forward a useful historical point here. Is there any way we can compromise on this?--Marktreut 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A pre- and a post-release section sounds like a good idea; I'm leaving work now, but I'll have a look at it this evening and see if I can think of any other ways it can be presented. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While splitting it at some point in the future is still a good idea, I've identified several paragraphs which could certainly use a trim. Judicious use of a quote box or two might serve to break it up some too, whilst maintaining the overall flow. I'll have a crack at that in an hour or two, see how it looks. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, an hour or two turns into several when one only finds short bursts of time in which to edit. Still, I've knocked something up which might suffice. See what you think, and I assure you I'll not take offence should you think it terrible and decide to revert. Incidentally, while I'm here, have you any idea how to stop pages which have been userfied from appearing in Google searches? Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess the Barnstar answers that question! :D - thank you kindly, that was my first. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Middle-earth on film

Someone felt the amount of information The Hobbit had on two films that may not come to pass was biased. So I moved it to LOTR film trilogy as a way of just showing the trilogy's popularity has prompted development of other Tolkien films. It's a no-win situation. Alientraveller 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This scuffle took place 5-6 October 2007. Davemon (talk · contribs) stated in his edit summary "undue weight being given to speculative section and hollywood gossip. This page is primarily about the book", and then after my initial revert, started chipping away at the context, as you can see here: [1] After my move, he/she stated at his/her talk page, "The move to LOTR#prequel is a good one. It's mostly not relevant to The Hobbit itself, and biases a specific reading and treatment of the novel. The article would benefit from the addition of the licensing situation of the property." Alientraveller 14:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right as usual. If Davemon gets in the way, I'll make sure I'll direct him to you. But I'm fine either way. I mean, Wolverine isn't really an X-Men film is it? Alientraveller 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, it's The Lord of the Rings trilogy, not because it's Tolkien, it's because it's a three-part adaptation of the book. Therefore a "LOTR film series" is a nonsensical title. Perhaps there should be an article on Middle-earth on film.

God, I'm just creating more work for myself. "Go back into the abyss! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your master!" Alientraveller 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame

I noticed the "I don't wanna be an admin" box on your userpage. I think it's a shame, as I'm fairly confident you'd breeze right through the process. Even if you stuck to improving film articles, I'm sure the sysop bit would come in handy sometimes. *shrug*

If you reconsider, give me a shout. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: State of Play

Excellent; I check the Google News listing every day for it, but didn't think to check there. Rottentomatoes says it's "currently filming" but it's not strong enough to make me recreate the article as yet. Thanks again, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed a wise man to know on Wikipedia; the filming date has now been set back to the 27th. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I've been scouring Google News all day looking for an indication that filming might have started. Only when I checked here did I see it listed as the 27th instead of the 15th. BAH. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How bizarre (sorry, didn't have time to edit down the size). Have you cleared your cache? Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 16:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I actually considered afterwards that it was impolite of me to barge in and make the change; you were in the middle of creating the article and would have spotted it for sure. I've copy-pasted from other film articles too, resulting in my original version of the State of Play article saying the film was about "a monster attack on New York" in the premise section. :) Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

God damn it: Brad Pitt drops out of State of Play. This project now looks doomed. The problem now won't be in finding another actor to fill the role before the end of the month, but in finding one who is both enough of an A-lister to stop Universal getting cold feet and who has enough charisma to go toe-to-toe with Edward Norton without coming off second best. For my money, the only actor available right now who fits both is Russell Crowe, and this isn't usually the kind of thing he goes for. Still, if nothing else good has come of this, it'll serve as an excellent example the next time you're arguing for the enforcement of the notability guidelines for films. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on 2001

I was surprised that the 2001 movie page had no thoughts about Clarke's thoughts by way of fiction ...Childhoods End ... and his non fiction on advanced extraterrestrial civilizations , sorry my little essay was so badly worded. The idea must have verifiable sources since I can remember talking with science fiction fans about the connection of 2001 to Childhood's end as far back as 1968! I don't think it is original with me.

Say I have some additions to the science section on the 2001 movie entry, but would like to know how to get them cleared so they actually get posted there! I have worked in manned space flight for 40 years and know a bit about the science in 2001. Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert.a.jackson (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lions for Lambs

Thanks, I'll take a look at the resources on the talk page when I get a chance. Thanks for acknowledging my work! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

• I'll take a look - but I've got my hands full working on some other film articles at the moment, actually at least four at present. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
  •  Done, removed the "Structure", unsourced, OR, Sect. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

I saw your developing a new article called User:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club. You may want to add this text/sources/interpretations to it:

Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk was a graduate of The Landmark Forum, or "The Forum", for short, and this later influenced his work. In his review of the film adaptation of the book, Roger Ebert likened the character Tyler Durden to Werner Erhard.. Ebert wrote that Tyler Durden was: "..a bully--Werner Erhard plus S & M, a leather club operator without the decor." Fight Club film producer Ross Grayson Bell believes that his "creative synchronicity" with writer Palahniuk was due to their shared experience of attending The Forum.

Let me know what you think. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

• I dunno, I suppose you could start by writing the article, and have a subsection on the book first, and then the film... Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Then, within those two larger subsections, you could decide whether to structure it by influence/theme ("The Forum", masculinity, corporate culture, materialism, etc.) or simply by chronology of some sort. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Sounds like you've got a good idea going there. Feel free to use the material/source I provided, and keep me posted on when you start that new article - I'd love to help out a little bit, maybe til you get it to WP:DYK and then WP:GA status. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
      • P.S. - If you happen to find any more sources about Fight Club that discuss the film or the book along that similar theme from above, let me know, because I'll use them in a different article as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

Image:Mach 5 in film.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mach 5 in film.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Doczilla 08:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (Image has been orphaned, replaced by image that is not under copyright elsewhere.) Doczilla 08:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

first at all: thank you! i'm a wikipedian in the wikipedia ... so.. but i'm only been in wikipedia for a short time. But, its not sooo new for me! if you want to see my german page (if you can read it ^^) than click [2] .. but i'm going to translate it completly in english..

and sorry about my english (thats the main-reason why i didn't put the book in... ).. i'm german, and my english isn't soo good, but i'm making an exchange year right now to improve it! (i'm in IN)

so.. still thank you! --.læraðr 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again OR /spam on

thank you again ^^. i think the commands, and the complete "background-system" (i don't know how to call it...) is mostly the same.. the only difference that i've seen, is that the english wiki has much more articles and espetialy projects... (if you - for example - watch the englisch Saw VI talk page and compare it with the german one.. you don't see all these project on the german one...)

and its sometimes better, .. for example in music, i normaly watch both sides, if i want to have information about a band.. espetally the gerne, because in the german one its.. sometimes a little bit .. odd... i don't know.. ^^ so.. /spam off --.læraðr 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ahh.. thats from my times as irc-chatter. or if you write in bulletin boards/forum.. if you write something offtopic or silly - if you are spamming - than you put these in /spam on /spam off.. so that the other people can see that you are being silly... more joke. than anything else ^^

this with the articles is true.. the english wikipedia is the biggest one.. and i think that that is the reason for have so substantial articels here.. i mean the german one - the second biggest i thing - is still really good.. but sometimes i look on both and take information from both sides --.læraðr 23:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Content removal

I'm just curious, you made this edit saying you were removing link spam yet you removed most of the content. Was that a error on your part? Kwsn (Ni!) 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense then, just making sure. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Film template

Thanks for the suggestion. I just stole the infobox from another movie, so I guess it didn't have all the necessary categories. Jauerback 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Expand all you want. I haven't looked for any new info in a few days. Jauerback 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good. Jauerback 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Live Free or Die Hard

This article is already close to GA concerning the number of sources, so I'm going to finish the last few steps to bring it to GAN. Do you have any other sources that you saved in the past for the article? If not, I can continue to search online. I already found some sites for the visual effects for the production section, but figured if you already had something else to include, I should add it. --Nehrams2020 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it, if you don't have anything, you don't need to go searching since you're probably busy enough with the rest of your films. I'll just do a basic search later today and see what I can find and will probably nominate in the next day or two. --Nehrams2020 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a debate about deleting the Phantasm V page?!?!

Erik, I need to know why you are choosing to delete the Phantasm V page? I have 2 sources and a few links that talk about the fifth installment. There's no reason to delete it. -The Correctonator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctonator (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Fountain

I glanced over a minor article in this month's Empire, and it's got something about The Fountain and its atheistic themes, with an Aronofsky quote. I'm not sure how to include it, so I'll leave it to you, the steward of the article:

"I'm Godless... It's about this endless cycle of energy and matter, tracing back to the Big Bang. We're all just borrowing this matter and energy for a little bit, until it goes back into everything else, and that connects us all."

By the way, I've been sorting out information on Dragon Ball. I hope it all doesn't look too cheesy, but I don't expect talking pigs on screen really. Good work on Surf Ninjas, I'd never heard of it. Alientraveller 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would feel a lot better if Stephen Chow was doing it, if they were going to adapt the tone of the early Dragon Ball episodes: a kid taking on an entire army and had a habit of turning into King Kong. But I do expect it to look good, we've seen Hollywood experimenting already with that style in The Matrix Revolutions and its climactic fight, and I imagine Frieza looking like how they did Silver Surfer on screen. Man, so many warm memories coming back. Please, don't do Buu though... Alientraveller 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the days are coming when live action is purely a distinction. But I feel people should limit the use of CGI to purely impossible things, and that films like Beowulf should remain unique for now. It's just humans will never be fooled by imitations of reality. How bland is something like Final Fantasy compared to The Incredibles? I'd love to be proven wrong, and I'm looking forward to Beowulf, Tintin and Avatar. Just, couldn't they have spent $150 million on some miniatures, costumes and a set too? Ah well, I hope it's good. Alientraveller 18:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Happy Birthday

Thank you. :) Although tommorow is really my birthday, since I haven't went to bed yet. But whatever! :P  Paul  730 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 18 is a biggie. It's legal drinking age, lol. Me and some friends were gonna go clubbing, but I don't know if it's still happening... being thursday night and all. Oh well, we're see.  Paul  730 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, a friend of mine who shares the same birthday is doing that tonight. Doesn't waste any time. :) Apparently the club we were planning on going to is a total dive, so I doubt we'll be IDed. I was discussing that with someone actually - how gutting it would be to not be IDed once you're 18. I dunno, some of my friends cancelled last minute so I don't know what's going on... sure I'll find a drink somewhere, I am Glasweigen(sp?) after all! ;)  Paul  730 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me - they didn't ask for ID. Lol, don't know whether to be flattered or disappointed. :)  Paul  730 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Current fiction

I've left a message on the template's talk page to that effect. Either it should be reworded entirely to something other than a spoiler warning, or deleted. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 14:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club (film)

I'm not a good copyeditor, but structurally and in terms of sourcing, it looks very good. Be sure to review image caption punctuation per WP:MOS#Images. I'm not sure why you're worried about size; it's currently at 33 kB readable prose, within the 30 to 50KB WP:SIZE guidelines, so if you need to add more, it should be OK. Sorry to take so long! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A Message By the El-Dude-O'

El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I must be getting all wise and stuff

Otherwise, I am not sure I could have tendered something like this otherwise. Every time I cross paths with that kid, I've felt like I was devolving. I don't like the way I feel when I am editing with (read: against) him. I think there are only three people I've met in WP that can do that to me. lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, honestly, I thought that, after my post, there would be some teeny-tiny part of him that would realize that the constant bickering is pointless, and that we should just avoid each other. As usual, he saw the move as a sign of weakness. How is it someone so intelligent can be so emotionally stunted? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

His taking my olive branch and using it to try and poke out my eye prompted the observation of that particular lack. I didn't say that I like the fellow; I said that its a better move for us to avoid each other. He saw that as a sign of weakness. I kinda pity him. I think I'm done with him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hulk

Thanks, I'm not sure whether I'm going to put this into the film's article or for a franchise article, because it's certainly notable that Michael France really sent the film on its father-son direction, but I'm not sure about Jonathan Hensleigh's giant bug movie. Also, would you prefer the quotebox to keep France's comments on Hulk as a comedy, or his thematic intent instead? Alientraveller (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My source has a massive interview with France, and I've quoted him on the comedy possibility of the film, but also he discusses his dark themes of the film about Banner trying to control his anger and being influenced by Peter David's abusive father story, which I've done in prose. Should it be vice versa?

Oh, and read my sandbox if you wanna know about Hensleigh's plot. Alientraveller (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Beowulf (2007 film)

Thank you Erik, I really appreciate the feedback. And I also appreciate your commentary and suggestions which I find very helpful in knowing how to best improve the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman Forever and Batman (1989 film)

Why did you delist both articles? i don't see a discussion on WP:GAR. If this was discussed somewhere else (??) please show me. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, thanks for reverting. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Incredible Hulk

I read the cited info on that Norton/Bixby thing, and they don't specifically say 'Bixby who played the Hulk', they're talking about how Norton and Bixby have similar empathic attitudes as actors or some such actory nonsense. Leaving that Bixby played Banner is more factual, and avoids the idea of referring to the Hulk as meaning both Banner and Hulk. ThuranX (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot purpose

Thanks for clarifying something that I'm not sure many understand. At Spoiler you stated vis-a-vis the purpose of the Plot section: "Basically, it only exists to give shape to aspects like production, reception, etc. It does not exist to tell the readership what the film's about for the sake of seeing it, only for the sake of comprehending other information in the article." For a while now I've been of the opinion that Plot sections in many film articles (at least those for popular films) are far too detailed and contrary to fiction guidelines as laid out in Novels style guidelines. I'd like to see many film Plot sections truly summarized — with details appropriate for support of the Response, Themes and Production sections — but I fear quite a few editors would find such a move unpopular. Thanks for your many valuable contributions to film articles.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Future films

I would agree that smaller films that have not yet reached development ought to be deleted, but articles with big-name actors have a better chance of being considered notable enough for inclusion. I would recommend that you take these articles to AfD to get community consensus. GlassCobra 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I admit that I know little about the ins and outs of the film industry, I was merely acting on the aforementioned presumption that films with A-list actors would have a higher chance of actually coming to fruition. GlassCobra 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm always getting myself into trouble for not being nice :P --Closedmouth (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfaithful (film) peer review

Thanks for the list of periodicals for further info on Unfaithful. You mentioned contacting you for any help tracking any of them down. I would be very interested... esp. that American Cinematographer and Creative Screenwriting articles. --J.D. (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Prestige

I still keep an eye on The Prestige article, but haven't been in a position to add anything to it, so I'd be interested in anything you come up with. I'm planning to work on the novel's article, so I'm re-reading it in preparation. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help with the film article. Thanks. (PS: I was amazed at the amount of recent activity on Preity Zinta!)
Jim Dunning | talk 04:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Erik, great job on all your film article contributions, as well as informative and lively discussions on the various Talk pages. Thanks. What methods/strategies are you using to search for web sources? I'm always on the lookout for source material for Response and Themes sections for film and novels articles, and it sounds like you're having success in finding it. Thanks ahead of time.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Batman Forever

I would be more than welcomed to find out as to how you were able to read those magazine articles. It would be pretty fun to read those and expand the article. I will start editing tomorrow to fit your requirements. Thanks for your cooperation, I guess. Wildroot 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Written by

And people will argue who should get more prominence: the source or the film's actual script. I'm fine with it as is. Alientraveller (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Up to you. But I'm not bothered, and I don't think you should either. Nice job on The Mist by the way. Alientraveller (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, Darabont owes King his livelihood. Alientraveller (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see some grateful people in the world at least. Alientraveller (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of This Mist (I've just read the article and that's some good work you've done there), at some point in the future you should perhaps double-check the cast list you've compiled from The New York Times' online film guide; for example, their entry for Golden Compass still lists Nonso Anozie and Charlie Rowe as voicing Iorek Byrnison, when in fact Ian McKellen has taken over the role, so it would appear they're not infallible. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD thoughts

I brought Suryamukhi to AfD just before I had to undergo a week offline (the pain...), and it seems to have survived despite the clear notability guidelines on future films. Do you have any suggestions as to what to do next? The article makes it clear that the project is not necessarily on a clear path to immediate production - were it obviously about to start, I'd leave it be. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kick the wheels

Could I trouble Alientraveller, Bignole and yourself to check out an image i just uploaded? the Santa Clause page was in some need of a modern Santa image, so I uploaded this. I think i covered my bases, copying the rationale from another Nast Santa image, but better safe than sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So, should I assume that the image was sparkles, and that no other work needed doing on it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Thanks anyway, Erik. Hope you had a good Turkey Day. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Two? Arrgh, you must be having fish for Christmas... Alientraveller (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not surprising when I dip into the pools of my memory. You made your user page completely wiki-focused now. Alientraveller (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The userboxes I mean. I recall now you don't want people to know much about your personal life, and I respect that. Alientraveller (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's like there's two Don Murphys, isn't there? The guy who sherperded Transformers to the big screen and decided fans wanted Peter Cullen and Frank Welker back, and then this internet troll. Frightening. Anyway, I believe Wikipedia to have a friendly atmosphere, and it's nice to assume as good faith as possible with people who share the same interests. Now if only people wouldn't whine about good work as with here.

Anyway, I have a query. I'm culling my backlog with Prince Caspian, and I was wondering how to include information on Dwarf costumes. Should I include them in the cast, considering we have three unique cases of black dwarf, red dwarf and half-dwarf? Alientraveller (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ticket to Heaven

I'm sure that there are plenty of easily accessible sources out there, but since you're the film buff I was curious if you had already compiled any sources for Ticket to Heaven ? If not, that's cool, it probably won't take me long to dig up twenty or so and flesh out the article a bit, might involve a library trip or so. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

• Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

Blade Runner 2007

Is there a separate article for the Final Cut? I got the impression from discussion on the talk page that there had been one, but that it was deleted sometime in the past. If there isn't one, perhaps it could be created, which would allow us to shorten that section in the main article. My impression is that, at least of late, that particular section is the target of more edits than the rest of the article. Am I offbase here? I would like to know your opinion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly cannot say how different the new version is, as I have not seen it. Frankly, I doubt many of the editors who have been making all these changes have seen it either---they are relying on online sources because there has been so much discussion about this new version on different sci-fi websites. Now, how accurate said information is, I do not know. But, to judge by the edits to that section, and assuming the reliability of the information provided, this new version is apparently significantly different than that which is known to most people. I look forward to helping get this article in shape, and I thank you for your efforts. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: T-Day

It was pretty good. I went to my g/f's parents. I actually didn't eat all that much, at least not as much as I've done before. The weekend isn't over yet, though, and I'm getting annoyed with this FSU/UF game. How was your T-Day?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll be working through my break, though, I hope to get some of those sandboxes finished an put into the mainspace. I'm having issues with the Michael Myers sandbox. Enter Movie has been taking things from my sandbox and putting them in his own Michael Myers sandbox. Then he started putting some of the things I had done into the article itself. So, I'm going to try and turn what I have into prose and put that into the article immediately, then when I do further research I'll just put it directly into the mainspace. It's one thing if he wanted to work together on the article--always appreciate the help--but it's another to steal the research that Paul and I had done on our own and undermine our efforts. What is up with that "Spoiler debate" section of Million Dollar Baby?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I know there's nothing keeping him from doing it. It just urks the nerves to have it done. Like I said, it's one thing to work together and make the article better, it's another to steal the work of others and try and pass it off as your own. Ah...the ArbCom. Not even watching it. This isn't the first time one had been It always turns ends up getting directed away from his actions and toward the guideline as a whole. I don't know how many times some says, "TTN is abusing WP:EPISODE", but in the end they turn it into, "WP:EPISODE basically sucks and we should rewrite it so that every episode is notable from the start". I don't need all that stress right now, especially not stress that is just repetative of previous stress. From my experience, TTN, unless blocked for a long time, will continue as he does. People will complain because they think every episode deserves its own page, like a film. There will be edit wars. Merge discussions will be ended as "no consensus" because 50 fanboys come in and go "no, don't merge" with no real reason the articles should be merge, and the closer will count "votes" instead of looking at arguments. The same goes for the AfDs that take place. The Admins usually count "yays" and "nays" andgo on their merry way. I'm trying to distance myself from it. I'm going to focus on Smallville, and make that series that best all around series of articles for televisions shows---er, whenever I get off my butt and actually start working on them again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What else do you think needs to be done to the Friday the 13th franchise article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck on the paper.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review/promotion/copy-editing, it's all appreciated. Yeah, I have plans on a "Cultural impact" section, it's just not at the top of my list of things to do in regards to all the other articles I'm working on. How'd the paper come?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. My goal is to get the "Big 3" up to FA status--Freddy, Jason, and Michael--I'll consider is a Grand Slame if I can get Leatherface up there as well. lol. You're paper writing technique sounds like mine, though I don't know if you did yours the day before or had time to proof it before submitting. I'll be done on Dec. 10 myself, it's the only exam I have that I have to come to class for. All the others are take home. What's funny, is that I can usually come to a new movie page and figure out if you've been there or not, because they always look neat, cited, and structured. lol. Plus, I can usually count on a quote box being present. As for the Superman film series page, I won't go there. It's gots some obvious issues, the cramming of images not being the least. I didn't even know the thing was up for review, no one posted anything on the Superman WikiProject, and I don't recall anything on the general Project Film page. Oh well, hopefully with time it will improve further.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know, because I stopped watching the page awhile ago. He had way too many issues with citation templates, horrible sentence and paragraph structures (1 sentence paragraphs), and sometimes I felt like he was actually citing himself in certain instances. He was creating a very large COI, and I just got tired of reading it. Are you still watching the page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Million Dollar Baby plot citation

I would suggest leaving the citation in the plot of Million Dollar Baby for now as a compromise. It also doesn't harm the article for it to be there. Pixelface demanded a citation for the section earlier today and so I added one. Pixelface simply doesn't like the citation since it torpedoes his argument completely. But to be honest, I don't think any citation would have satisfied him. But this way, it demonstrates that he is being completely unreasonable. --Farix (Talk) 22:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary writing

You asked me why I think plot summaries are original research. I don't think all plot summaries are original research, just the ones that don't cite secondary sources. The policy on no original research says "Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts" and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and "all material must be verifiable" and "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." If editors watch a film and write a plot summary themselves, unless that plot summary has been previously published in print, I think it's original research. WP:OR says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." A film is certainly a source, but it's not a reliable third-party source independent of the subject. A film is a primary source, but when editors report on it, they become a secondary source and editors cannot cite themselves. WP:OR says "Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources." The guideline on reliable sources says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't a think a film qualifies. One could assume that the editors who wrote a plot summary watched a film, but a reader has no way of knowing that. If a plot summary has no citations, it's not really verifiable for a reader unless editors include audio or video clips of the film. WP:RS says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." If a plot summary first appears on Wikipedia, that's considered a self-published source. The WP:PSTS portion of WP:OR says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." although that portion of policy is currently under debate. WP:OR says "Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criteria for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth." It also says "Verifiability was also promoted as a way to ensure that notable views would be represented, under the assumption that the most notable views were easiest to document with sources." WP:OR says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia." If a plot summary has been previously published, it should be easy to find and cite the secondary sources that wrote it. The {{OriginalResearch}} tag says "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." If a plot summary contains no citations, it's unverified. We could let every reader or every editor check facts themselves, and then I suppose no citations would ever be necessary. Readers could try to call Bill Gates up on the phone and verify Microsoft's net income for 2007, but that's unnecessary if a secondary source has already reported that information. I suppose a plot summary of a film can be verified by watching the film. But on Wikipedia, "verifiable" means "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." WP:V says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Unless an editor cites a screenplay, or a script with a page number, a reader has no way of finding the text that supports the article content. WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:V says "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." WP:V says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations." Blogs are not considered reliable sources, because anyone can make their own blog and write whatever they want. On Wikipedia, editors can also write whatever they want. We have to provide citations so readers know material is correct. A plot summary that cites a blog would not be acceptable, and a plot summary that cites nothing at all is also not acceptable. I know that the style guide for films says "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film" but I don't think that should be in the style guide. The film is a source, but it's not a print source, it's not a third-party source. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source", but it also says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research". An unpublished personal observation is original research. It also says "All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources." The guideline on writing about fiction says "It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation." If an editor re-tells a story without any analysis (which requires secondary sources) it may be construed as a derivative work. I have noticed Featured Articles with unsourced plot summaries, but I don't think unsourced plot summaries are supported by Wikipedia's three main policies. If someone writes a plot summary, they should be able to support their material with something besides "I watched the film myself." Plot summaries should not be an editor's own personal observations — that's original research. Speaking of the Million Dollar Baby article, that Plot section needs to cite secondary sources to show that material has been previously published. --Pixelface (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page to your recent questions on my talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent comment on my talk page. I guess we can respectfully disagree. I suppose I look more to the guideline on reliable sources for guidance, which says articles should have third-party sources. I agree that all editors write their own prose based on how they look at sources, but with a reference to previously published text, readers can see exactly what the editor was writing from. I don't think that is possible when citing a film, explicitly or implicitly. I do try to assume good faith about contributions, I just don't think blind faith is necessary. I think readers should not have to put their trust in anonymous editors that material is accurate. And I don't think readers should have to watch every film they read about on Wikipedia in order to verify the film article. Thank you again for mentioning my work on Critical reception sections. I really haven't included quotes in very many articles because it takes alot of time, and many people have said the sections are too long. It's something that can be removed so easily by anyone, so it can end up being just a big waste of my time. --Pixelface (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Personal Project

Hey, thanks. Be sure that I'll continue to draw on your help and experience on any other films articles I decide to try my hand at improving. As for State of Play, I deliberately chose to focus on that when I first joined in order to help me learn the ropes on Wikipedia, rather than from a special interest in the project itself; at the time it wasn't a film that was receiving a lot of attention, so it was a perfect choice for me to adopt. As time went on, I found myself more interested in the film itself and was 'very disappointed when I learned of Pitt's departure. Still, as I said the other day, if nothing else good has come of this, it'll serve as an excellent example the next time you're arguing for the enforcement of the notability guidelines for films. As an aside, it wasn't until yesterday that I realised it was Thanksgiving weekend; hope you had a good one. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JLA Movie

Thanks for the heads-up; I will adjust the Manhunter article accordingly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

StarWars.com question

Take a look at this edit. It seems that StarWars.com isn't really that reliable a source of info, specifically because the provenance of the info provided there seems questionable. What's your take on it? (Bignole and Alientraveller, please feel free to jump in). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Untouchables prequel

Given the most recent developments, should this be merged with De Palma? I could understand maybe looking the other way on the NF violation when it seemed ready to start, but being as it's stalled (and this is exactly why we in theory shouldn't be "looking the other way"), maybe this article is obviously premature. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for those, I'll try to make use of them (though I spent an hour or so today wandering around the periodicals section of my university library trying to find old issues of Sight & Sound!). To be honest I'm not sure which way the article will go; there's not as much thematic analysis on it as there is for Nolan's other films, but there's plenty on his direction style so I can try to gather a section together on that. Additionally, there is a lot on story and style comparisons between it and the original version (which I haven't actually seen yet... ). Brad (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation issues

I follow your logic on the naming for American Gangster, but I was curious what your thoughts were on this situation. Morningside Heights redirects to Morningside Heights, Manhattan with the disambiguation page at Morningside (disambiguation) and breadcrumb links to the Toronto neighborhood and the disambiguation page. Should this be changed similarly to American Gangster or is it possible that at some point in the future a similar system will be setup for the film? Just curious. Thanks for being patient and laying out your thoughts on the AG discussion.  ~ Paul^C/_T+ 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what you're requesting, are you asking if American Gangster topics should be sorted like the Morningside (Heights) topic? My opinion is that the present design seems fair to all the topics. I think that if it weren't for the album article, the film article could have been the core article. Considering that both the film and the album are popularized with the celebrities involved, it'd be hard to determine clearly that the film truly stands out. Let me know if I've understood you correctly, as I'm not clear about what you're proposing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious if the sorting at the Morningside Heights articles follows the standards for having the breadcrumb links at the top of the page. Basically should there be breadcrumb links at those topics, and if so why shouldn't there be breadcrumb links for the AG articles? The AG setup made sense to me, but after seeing the Morningside Heights articles I'm not as sure why the breadcrumbs shouldn't be there. Basically, because the base Morningside Heights page redirects to the Manhattan article and not the disambiguation page, would it be possible in the future for a similar situation to arise for the AG main page vs the specific articles and disambiguation page? And if so, wouldn't it make sense to have the breadcrumbs in place now? Actually, strike that, I just wanted to know if you thought the breadcrumb links for the non-AG articles I linked above made sense or not. If they do, in your opinion would it make sense for a similar system to be adopted for the AG articles? Sorry for being cryptic. ~ Paul^C/_T+ 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I see with the linking is Morningside Heights, Manhattan linking to Morningside (disambiguation). "Morningside Heights" only covered Manhattan and Toronto topics, while the other topics don't have "Heights" at all. If a reader was looking for "Morningside Heights" specifically, they don't seem to need the regular "Morningside" topics. Otherwise, I think that the setup seems to be OK. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman film reassessments

I'm nearly finished with the two projects. I have a question. Of course there are unanimous links you left for Batman Forever. I cannot add these as I have no idea how. You are far too busy with more important film projects. I'm open anytime you feel like. Anyway what happens after I'm finished correcting the errors? Do you go through the article once more and see for yourself or what? I don't know damn.

Something I noticed here. This is very similar as to what you made for this. This is why I feel Batman Forever shouldn't be delisted anymore. I believe we need to take it off. See if you can fit this into your busy schedule. Wildroot (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I came of across as some jerk. My apologies. I don't intend on reassessing Batman Begins, as it doesn't deserve to. Of course I understand why you reassessed them. It's just right now I'm nearly finished with two of them and I don't know whether they just sit in the "GOOD ARTICLE REASSASMENT" page or what. I would love as much help as I can get. Wildroot (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf

Hi Erik:

Links to paid subscription sites that require payment for articles don't make for suitable references, nor are they in the spirit or keeping of Wikipedia. WikiTracker (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Now I'm removing the section, as it doesn't need to be discussed more. When I'm finished with my DVDs, we should have discussions more often. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

300 edits

And thanks for the assist there, you Big Vandal, you. - Love, Sherlock (lol) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable American newspapers

Is the New York Post considered a reliable source in America? I just checked some information I added previously for the Angels and Demons article, and learnt the newspaper was a tabloid. That'd be like citing The Sun for me (though granted, numerous Doctor Who rumours they posted were true). Who are the more reliable papers in America and who aren't? Alientraveller (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Things like Access World News would be great to verify bibliographies in books, but I like to limit myself. Using DVDs, fan site archives and making-of books as well as whatever magazine articles I buy mean I can more easily manage my citing. Otherwise I would be swamped. Now I'm trying to think of a good analogy here, meh... Alientraveller (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job on Body of Lies. Meanwhile, I've cited my newly received issue of Empire: at least we've now cleared the whole "Joker - permanent face or not" controversy. Alientraveller 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! Alientraveller 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, can you revert an IP edit to Big Fish. I don't want to get myself blocked for a further revert. Alientraveller 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been unprotected now. Honestly, I almost lost faith in Wikipedian policy, but if I haven't lost faith in humanity... Alientraveller 22:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Who Wrote Dead Sea Scrolls photos

Thank you very much for removing the photos on this page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29. Unfortunately, another editor named Jossi keeps putting one of the photos back in. I really believe that either all of the photos stay, or they all go. The original hardcover photo suffices and the others are redundant. I would be grateful if you could eliminate them all again.

Incidentally, Jossi has admitted to having personal "opinions" on Golb on another page, and to "throwing oil on the fire"--is it entirely appropriate for him to be involved in editing this page? Critical Reader (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Erik, thanks for taking a look at the article re: image overuse. I'll keep a watch on it and check back in a month or so when the edit war quiets down to make sure all images comply. Mbisanz 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Great.

Thanks for asking. But I might wanna change the "away" message as I'm watching more than one DVD box set. TheBlazikenMaster 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Joker

Eric! I was pleased to see your message on my talk board. How are you? Hey, by the way, I didn't coin "verifibullies"...I did "ErikBigNolePedia". :) I'm glad that it has critical commentary. I think that page was missing something without SOME image of The Joker on it. It just felt naked without it. The editing is going great. My "The Hire" page got upgraded to a "B" status! :) I think it needs some pics to illustrate it a bit but I'm not good at making tables or providing rationale. Anyway...that's how it's goin'. I hope you're well, my friend! TabascoMan77 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's for damn sure! There's so much I want to contribute but I only have so much willpower to sit at my computer and type this stuff. "The Hire" was a pet project of mine because there wasn't much info about it on the page and I wanted to make newcomers (and veterans) of the series feel like there was more to the series than just overlong BMW commercials. I WISH I had print sources everything I wrote but, as it turns out, I'm not sure there was much mention in print because it was an online, word-of-mouth movie series. Fittingly, everything written about it happened to be online instead of in the paper or the trades. I'm sure that if I had access to LexusNexus or what have you, I could source that stuff. Your page for Body of Lies is lookin' good, as usual. You have a real niche for this stuff. I'll do what my old parents do and just randomly assign you a career based on your hobbies: "You should be a journalist!" :) My edits for Marc Ecko are also fairly intact. I did the Barry Bonds bit. I also revamped Miami Vice (2006) but I'm having problems with a user who keeps coming in and re-editing the entire article repeatedly. What he does is he vandalizes by posting the exact opposites of everything said in the article. For example, if a sentence reads, "Michael Mann had problems keep control of his set and his actors were upset with him," he posts, "Michael Mann had NO problems keeping control of his set and all his actors praised his attitude." So on and so forth. On his talk page, he's been warned to stop vandalizing but, who knows. I can't do any better than warn him, myself. That's how it's going with me! I promise, that if I ever make edits to "The Dark Knight", they will be intelligent ones. You're doing a great job, Eric. TabascoMan77 01:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you see this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw your note, yes, I agree. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

??? Less?

Well, I must say my first reaction to your message was a little bit of anger. I spent quite some time trying to fill in the extremely poor plot summary for Sunshine, and next thing I know I have someone saying they didn't really appreciate my contribution. This is the first time this has happened to me, but there has been other BS on wikipedia which has made me think twice about making contributions in the past.

However, this is more or less a "last straw" scenario.

I can read the section you quoted for me. It clearly states but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT MINIMAL. I don't know if you are some kind of overbearing martinet who likes to "control" things or you simply did not like my edit, but when I read the guidelines for Wikipedia's plot summary sections, I didn't see anything but the word "should be" which meant where possible - and that is not the case here IMO.

The plot summary for Sunshine was both lacking certain details and in some ways deceptive - it was certainly highly deficient. Sunshine is not a simple, straightforward film that can be summarized in the 600 words (and that is nothing more than a SUGGESTION) - the evidence was clear from the weaknesses of the summary that was there. There were numerous plot/filming points which are mentioned on other portions of the page that made no sense to anyone who had not actually seen the film due to missing information in the plot summary.

Obviously, I must have stepped on your toes on some pet project that you feel belongs to you. I noticed you have numerous edits in the history of the page. You have an idea in your head that there is some "rule" that must be followed, and I don't agree with you - that is not my interpretation of the section you quoted. Popping onto my user page to tell me I've done something wrong because you feel you have some kind of ownership of a page is outrageous - and you didn't even make any expression of THANKS for improving the section.

So - the answer is no. I won't go back and cut back on the summary. It is within the guidelines and breaks no rules. If you want to muddle it up by removing salient points to make it like it was, knock yourself out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CokeBear (talk • contribs) 23:10, November 30, 2007

If people are curious about my response. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club

I really don't know, but it's coming along fantastically. Let me know when you want to go to FA. Obviously the lead needs a rewrite, but I think you've improved there. Alientraveller 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome work on Fight Club. I thought I'd tell you that I came across the MOS for quoting, and it states it follows the "logical" method, which is placing the punctuation on the outside of the quotation--unless it is part of the quote itself. I was glancing over FC and noticed there were portions of text quoted and the period was placed inside the quote marks. I think this slips be FACs because most editors probably follow the general American style, which is punctuation on the inside.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, according to the MOS, encyclopedias use it because it's "more accurate", or something like that. Are you going to keep the track list from the CD in the article? I've only scanned the article, so I don't have any specific complaints...but it certainly looks good from what I can see. I'm anticipating the FAC--when you've finished all you're going to do with the article--I think this one is already at the point that it is set up to be the best film article we have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you usually only have 1 infobox in an article. I mean, since it basically contains what's in the prose next to it--or probably should--it really isn't necessary. As for the track listing, I'm not sure of their relevance, unless there were issues with specific songs, which would warrant mentioning. A simple Amazon search will give you the track listings and usually a sample of each track. How large are you hoping to make this article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I never looked at the others. Did you want me to?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly put it on the list. This week is my last "real" week of school, and I have two papers and a group presentation due, so it could be that I won't get to it till next week. I'll try and watch both of the other commentaries--guess I better get another legal pad ;).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is looking very good. I just found the second paragraph a bit meh without any real focus or anything that would interest a reader. More specific things like shooting locations would be worthy of a lead. I think the themes and the critical reaction is certainly more important. Alientraveller 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Find your focus through deciding how one would define the film's production. Perhaps it would be good to merge the second paragraph with the third because themes is really dependent on how one creates the film. That info on Norton losing weight while Pitt got more fancy could go in either casting or themes really. Alientraveller 16:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

LMAO, that IP was right..LOL. I wonder if I'm on it for real, or if they just knew about it and said I was on it for show. Wow, we actually have a CABAL..lol. I guess that page should read, "There is no CABAL, except when there's a CABAL".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not worried if I'm on it. I mean, I admit that I lose my cool with people sometimes, and it isn't right, but I don't believe I do anything that is actually worthy of blockage--except maybe being caught up in edit wars. Anyway, I'm going to try and do those commentaries for you here soon. I have two take home exams that I need to do, and after that I'm all done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I'd say what immediately comes to mind would be cultural impact of the Friday the 13th series. It's the one section I know will be the hardest to attain, and I know you have a knack for finding some obscure, but really good articles on films. But don't worry about till I get atleast one of the commentaries done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Luther Stickell (Mission: Impossible Film Character)

Just wanted you to know that I created my very first article. It's about Ethan Hunt's partner-in-crime from the Mission: Impossible movies, Luther Stickell. Take a look and let me know how you like it. :) TabascoMan77 00:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the advice I needed. I was looking for a good character page to learn from. Those two are perfect to study from. :) TabascoMan77 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of asking BigNole about that, too. This is my first time creating an article regarding anything so I'm just free-forming. This was just me jotting things down and then organizing it. I wanted the bits about him in each movie to be shorter but that was really the shortest I could come up with. Also, I think I want to add the types of technology used in the movies by Luther.TabascoMan77 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I own all 3 M:I movies and I think the one I need commentary for the most would be #1. If I am not mistaken Ving Rhames used an Apple Powerbook 540c and the rest of the cast used the (then-new) 5300c. I think they also used an IBM ThinkPad in there someplace. I just have to do some more research. I see how the Voorhees and Sparrow articles are aligned and I wouldn't mind following that format...except, like you said, there isn't much context to Luther. I would hope that JJ Abrams has something to add about his character. Even reading the script at "script-o-rama.com" doesn't shed much light on his character. What I will do is listen to John Woo and JJ Abrams speak about their movies and see if I can pull anything useful out their commentary. If I can't do that, I'm gonna have to resort to researching the character. TabascoMan77 01:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Erik, thanks for ALL the suggestions for the Luther article. I had found the "Color Monitors" essay before I started but couldn't find anything more than the first paragraph. That page REALLY helps me out because that was the page I was looking for to put some good sources in. I'm also gonna scout the other articles and listen to the two commentary tracks I have. I wish Brian DePalma did commentary for the first movie. That would really help me out. TabascoMan77 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

MST3K RS

I found this apparent interview with a guy who worked on the MST3K film Zombie Nightmare. Does it look like a reliable enough source for the artice? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it look GA quality, or should I not even bother trying to use it?" --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club in popular culture

I have userfied the article and included a copy of the article history on the talk page per the guidelines recommendations. Let me know if you need anything else, and I hope that helps you continue to improve the article for FA status. By the way, congrats on the new GA. --Nehrams2020 03:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitman

An editor has made it his mission to include the trivia on the Hitman movie article. I'de appreciate you're help, as I can no longer revert. DurinsBane87 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe do what I do; defuse the need to include it by move it to discussion pending citation. Noting that it cannot return to the article without citation will either make them jump up and seek citation (and if they cannot find it, it isn't your fault) or it will give you a handfy-made excuyse for directing them to the discussion page to talk and learn why uncited info cannot be there. Just my two pence

300 & Valkyrie

I really want to see it be in the main space, and silly nonsense like insisting on revisionist history isn't going to help that happen. I guess i don't understand Agha. I see that he's capable of doing good work, and cannot fathom his missing the forest for the trees problem in the 300 article. Apparently, he got tired of having me counter his proposals; he filed a wikiquette alert about my behavior in the article over six months ago. I think he just altered it slightly from the super-duper-secret RfC sub-page he kept threatening to file, and maybe thinks that no one is going to notice his bad behavior then or now.

After the DG thing ended so stupidly (and really, there's no other way to describe how it was finally dealt with), I am kinda burned out on even trying to get these uncivil folk blocked/banned/whatever; its a lot of effort to see someone jsut sock themselves a new account and go right back at it. DG's workin' my last nerve though; he might be almost worth a return to ArbCom Enforcement.

I'll be there for Valkyrie, though. I think it is going to be a monstrous Heaven's Gate-like flop. Speaking of films, what did you think of Beowulf and American Gangster? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:2008 in film

Are you sure you don't wanna comment on "I tagged the article a lot."? Surely you are a movie fan, and must have something to say about it. TheBlazikenMaster 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. I have tried submitting something there before, but I got a message that it will take over week or so for it to be added, there might be someone behind that's checking the additions. But yeah, I agree. News sites are way more trusted than IMDB. By news sites, I mean REAL news sites, not ones made by some random guy that just digs random news out of his brain. TheBlazikenMaster 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, sorry for the dumb choice of word. And yes all my blogs are of myself, otherwise they wouldn't be blogs would they? I suggest you get a YouTube account if you wanna continue the discussion as Wikipedia isn't a chatroom. TheBlazikenMaster 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember, but I did read the older stuff in your achieves, and am still doing it. I always read all discussions on the pages I wanna watch because Wikipedia is for knowledge. The more I read on talk pages, the more revisions I read, the more I know of the subject, (or the user in your case) get my point? TheBlazikenMaster 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Speak of the devil with false information: King Kong Vs. Jaws. Alientraveller (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it's been deleted. Come on, a land animal versus a sea animal? Seriously.

By the way, can you keep an eye on Bond 22? It appears some people are trying to censor Max von Sydow's mention of Blofeld appearing. Not that I'm complaining: I read the three Fleming novels with that character recently and I'd love that tale of revenge for killing Bond's one true love on screen (this time Vesper, not Tracy). Alientraveller (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Aw man, speaking of monster mashes, what are your views on Cloverfield? While interesting, I got a feeling people will just be dissapointed: it's not like we'll get a good look at the monster.

Oh, and the Prince Caspian trailer was fantastic. It's strange though to see Georgie Henley with long hair. Alientraveller (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I like Star Trek, and I think it's a good idea to reboot the series, because the whole backstory of superhumans like Khan being created in the 1990s was dating it a bit. I haven't done much work on the article because I don't really know much about their approach to it, the production design, inspirations etc. It's not like Transformers, because that I knew Spielberg, Rob Orci and Alex Kurtzman wanted it to make it about Bumblebee and Sam and the constant leakage of designs of the robots. I look forward to seeing what the Enterprise looks like, and maybe Romulans too, because Nero (Eric Bana's villain) sounds like a Romulan name. Alientraveller (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(Considering it's out in January over here) I'm really looking forward to I Am Legend. I read the Mark Protosevich script and it was really interesting, and so after I see the movie I think I'll go read the book. Which is always the case really with me, because I'm more of a movie person, and books are like an extended edition in terms of encyclopeadic interest of real-world creation. I think the only time I specifically read the book I'd never heard of because of a film adaptation were Lemony Snicket and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I don't tend to worry about spoilers with adaptations, because I like surprises in depiction rather than actual story. But films like The Prestige, where the reason I see it because of the twist rather than a giant monster, I'd rather not be aware of. Alientraveller (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of monsters, wow, Phil Tippett is doing Cloverfield? Seriously, we all just wanna see that new beastie. Alientraveller (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park IV (2009)

Hi

I know what you're trying to say, but the producer said that they will try to release it by that time. It hardly seems likely to be released next year (2008) because of the WGA strike. Also, who's to say the other films aren't also going to be delayed. We don't know this. Thanks, anyway. Please keep it there, or move it to 2010 or something. However, I understand if you remove it. Thanks anyway, --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

Fight Club CE

Hi there!

This is regarding the Fight Club film article and the LOCE request. Looking at the length, the organization, and the list of references (!), I'd say this article has got a lot of potential (FAC?). I'd love to work with you to ce it, but I see a few users have already begun on it. So the questions are these:

1. IYO does the article still require a CE?
2. If so, what sections have been already reviewed, and which sections still need attention?
3. And if yes to question 1, the final question is whether you would be available throughout the ce process (for feedback and info/source/nuance clarification).

Thanks!

--Malachirality (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'll get started on it soonish (but probably not for a few days) then, starting with the section after plot. Be warned though, that this is a copyedit only, so my "expert opinion" is limited to grammar, usage, style, and punctuation--not the actual subject matter (I know enough for a ce though). And thanks for communicating so promptly; these things go much better when there's a main author to talk to. --Malachirality (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call

Good call on the Jaws/King Kong madness. Takes a man to do that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur: you have the patience of a saint. Alientraveller (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even Jesus lost his temper. But sometimes you just have to let off some steam, recouperate and make sure you didn't make a civility violation or say sorry. You gotta remember these are real people or else you become the troll, the person who treats it as a game. Alientraveller (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on nothing more but my own gut feeling, I would think that a 10% divergence would be enough for a separate cream of the crop entry (I think Batman Begins must have levelled out since you last looked at its entry: 84% vs. 82%; creditable scores for any film, let alone a superhero one). I can sort of see the guy's point about explaining the ratings. I suppose if I'd never heard of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic before, I'd be a smidgeon confused until reading their respective entries, and so it probably doesn't hurt to keep the short descriptions. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 16:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Oh crap" indeed. That could present some problems. As you say, No Country for Old Men has pretty much the same rating in both countries, but there's no guarantee other films will have. The Batman Begins entry shines a torch onto the problem; the film was released over two years ago and they haven't upped all the reviews yet? I wonder what it's like in the other territories. When it comes up again, I suppose we have three options: 1) pick the territory of the film's first release; 2) pick the territory of the film's origin; 3) pick the territory with the greatest number of reviews. Thoughts? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried half a dozen films, both new and a few years old, and each has been identical (right down to the number of reviews counted) on both the UK and US pages, so it may be nothing to worry about after all. Batman Begins is obviously just some freakish anomaly. Probably best if we just monitor the situation; checking both versions during the initial add to an article and playing it by ear if there's divergence. Also, I'm right about the gerund on Fight Club, but it's not worth arguing about; I suspect the 'correct' way would read oddly to 90% of readers and it'd end up getting changed back on a daily basis. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm never 100% sure about anything :). But "discouraging" is a gerund isn't it? i.e. the verb "to discourage" warped into behaving like a noun? "My discouraging a film adaptation"; "his discouraging a film adaptation"; "Erik's discouraging a film adaptation"; therefore: "a reader's discouraging a film adaptation"? It's very ugly, but does seem right. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've haven't yet fallen foul of WP:3RR during my time here, so I perhaps haven't paid enough attention to counting my reverts. I'll make sure I keep an eye out. Thanks again, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Gah, only this morning I told an editor "to think of Wikipedia not as an outlet for any real-world anger or annoyance, but as an escape from it. Taking a few seconds to read an intended edit summary or talk page comment back to yourself can make all the difference to how you're perceived" and then I go and leave an irate message for TheGoonSquad in response to a snarky (but ultimately inconsequential) comment from him on my talk page.. Your advice to him was much more constructive, and I'll do well to follow suit in the future. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Underworld 3

You tell me on my page, that underworld 3 is not comeing out in 2010? Can you tell where it comeing out. Most sites on google said it comeing out on 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Choke

Hey, thanks for keeping me updated. :) —Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film)

On the most recent edits, I reverted Helpsloose because it wasn't mentioned in the article. Could you be involved in this? I really think you agree that it should be mentioned in the article, I didn't wanna start dumb edit war, and I'm way too tired to start a discussion on the movie talk page, so I came to you. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

World's Finest

Actually, i think it's not so much a post- World's Finest relationship, but a more intelligent exploration and continuation of it. All of the issues (from both Batman's and Superman's private reflections on the other) refer to their previous and long-term experiences with one another. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the term 'World's Finest' is recurrent in the Superman/Batman series, and the term is utilized in the article for the current series. However, that's rather beside the point. The origins of the Midnighter (and Apollo) are found not in the more current series but in the older series as a different interpretation of the dynamic between two such characters. As well, the reference in the Midnighter article is used as an identifier for the Batman/Superman pairing, and not explored beyond that; the wikilink for the term explains the pairing in more depth. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a compromise in the matter was already reached prior to your suggestion. I am not sure that a see also would be appropriate for the Midnighter article, as the article is indeed about the Midnighter. As well, such a wikilink would seem non-useful in the World's Finest or Superman/Batman articles - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Critical reception sections

Sorry I didn't notice your comment on my talk page you sent 12 days ago. I did add the critical quotes to the Eastern Promises and The Brave One (2007 film) articles. I also expanded the reception sections on The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film), Superbad (film), Next (film), Enough, Mr. Bean's Holiday, Jackass: The Movie, No End in Sight, The Ex (2007 film), and The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. On The Ex (2007 film), I focused more on finding similar sentiments seen in multiple reviews and I wrote prose and cited the reviews. I really haven't added quotes lately. I've got people telling me that they're too long or that we can't quote so much. It just takes too long to put together and I'm not really seeing the benefit. Which 10 or so critics to cite out of 140? If we link to a review aggregator, readers can find reviews there. I do think that terms like "fresh", "rotten", and "metascore" should be avoided. Many readers don't know what they mean, and those terms might even be trademarked. I noticed there was some confusion over those terms at The Golden Compass article. The terms could be wikilinked and be redirects to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but I just find it easier to say "X% of critics gave the film positive reviews based on Y reviews" when speaking of Rotten Tomatoes and say "the film received an average score of X out of 100 based on Y reviews" when speaking of Metacritic. I liked the work you did on Surf Ninjas. I'm impressed. :) --Pixelface (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Tangential to this critical reception talk, Erik, I know you tend to frown on "Book vs. film" type sections (and with good cause; most are nothing but original research), but I came across this earlier today and wondered if it might come in useful in your work on The Mist article. I haven't actually read it (I want to remain unspoiled), but it's from The AV Club blog section, and while I know blogs are not generally accepted as sources here, often The AV Club's can be more accurately described as a series of bona fide articles from their principal reviewers. Anyway, maybe it'll be useful. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Giving the relevant header, I've got a proposal for I Am Legend. Most of the reviews I'm looking at suggest the film's first hour or so is more introspective than the last half-hour. So why not pick a very select few of critics, and analyze it as such? So like their perspective on Smith's performance in one paragraph, and another on the ending. It would be a refreshing approach to the usual "everybody's two cents" to try to create a sense of consensus. Alientraveller (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're free to play around with User:Alientraveller/Sandbox 2#I Am Legend reception. Alientraveller (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragonball

I'm becoming confused. Both Variety and THR reported the film would began filming last month, but it's not listed in THR's production listings, either domestic or international. We have the Mexican newspaper discussing a January start, but this could mean location filming. Your two cents? Should I just trust the trades' announcement and unmerge? Alientraveller (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I got a funny feeling this project might get delayed: it's coming out on August 15 afterall. Unless Fox really want to rush this project. Alientraveller (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cute technical jazz. Thanks for uploading the smaller Skull poster. Man, doesn't it look so cool? It's lovely so many oldtimers from the trilogy like Steven, George, Harrison, Frank, Kathleen, Michael Kahn and Drew Struzan are back, but I feel so melachony Connery, Rhys-Davies, Denholm Elliott, Ben Burtt and Douglas Slocombe aren't making the return trip. I hope the VFX supervisor is also an oldtimer. Still, should be an awesome ride for all us Indy fans. Alientraveller (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. The other LA Times cite has also timed out for me. Alientraveller (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, THR has confirmed Dragonball is shooting. Alientraveller (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Very sure! Even the 2002 press release had Akira Toriyama calling it as such. Alientraveller (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

YES! Alientraveller (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate about all the edit conflicts. Next time, which is something I always do, after always typing a long message, copy it and paste it after checking for a new reaction. Alientraveller (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bay was always welcome to discuss rabid fans. Of course, we know who had the last laugh: all reliable sources point to eventual fan approval of the film. Of course, there's always the ones who complain about things like Tom Bombadil being dropped... Alientraveller (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield

It is? Thanks for telling me! Do you know who created it?--Cojin (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like it's gonna be some type of whale type beast though. When looking through the Slusho site they say something about whales.--Cojin (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with those Viral sites anyway? How do they really promote a film? By giving it an aura of mystery?--Cojin (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Future films department...

...is now on the project sidebar and in the new announcements section. Just thought you'd want to know! :) Regards, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I thought might be a good task for the department would be to go over all of the Future-Class articles and create a list of release dates for all of the films which have them - this will then give a worklist for when to reassign a normal class. New additions could easily be tracked through Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Future-Class film articles, which means that after the initial heavy lifting of compiling the list, maintaining it will be much easier. I only suggest all this because it seems that the Future tag often is not lifted upon release of recent Hollywood films, much less the many foreign films which don't get as much attention from most English-speaking editors. What are your thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't really aware of Google Alerts, but I've set a few up now and I'm certain they'll be useful (though if there's even a scrap of information anywhere I don't already have about State of Play, I'll be very surprised). It's also good to see Future Films is up and running now; hopefully we can set a standard with that which other editors will follow, especially with regard to WP:NF. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 10:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth. Or keyboard. Whatever... One to keep an eye on methinks. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha. It's beginning to look more and more like one of those projects which will be dogged by bad press, exaggerated rumour and speculation (nothing is confirmed, but I can't see how Helen Mirren can stay on board with her schedule as it is, and if she goes, the coverage will only get worse). Still, if nothing else, it should provide plenty of information for the article when the film finally gets around to shooting. Affleck is no Norton (few are none are), but this is the right kind of role for him to be taking at this stage in his career, and if he can pull it off it might finally see the completion of his rehabilitation in the eyes of the movie-going public after the "Bennifer" years. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Future movies

Hello, I want to get an advice about future movies. Can you name me all reliable sites? Because I really wanna know of good reliable sites that give good info about movies, and is edited by professionals. Do you know of such site? I would appreciate if you named me more than one, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm gonna make the article, but YES, YES, YES! [3] Alientraveller (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pete's making Bones and Tintin, and producing The Hobbits. Now just let Halo kick back into gear... Alientraveller (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Henry's Meadow

I just noticed that the stub for Andrew Henry's Meadow had been deleted. Since that is the title of a classic children's book (not just a stalled film project), I recreated the article as a redirect to the author, Doris Burn. You may want to list it among the redirects on your blacklist page. --Dystopos (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tintin

The Tintin trilogy has its own article on the main page of the French language wikipedia; http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Accueil . So this is really different standards between French and English language : worthy of main page in one case, forbidden in the other case.... Hektor (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Batman teaser

Just saw it at the IMAX this last week, and it was ^awsome! the Joker's bank heist is brlliant, funny and damaged in a way that I cannot really explain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

TFD nomination of Template:Current fiction

I see you mentioned the TFD at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films. Are you also going to mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television? I take it you'll be contacting the editor who created the template, all of the editors who worked on that template, the editors who argued in favor of it at this TFD, the admin who declared it had consensus, and the editors who rewrote the spoiler guideline around it? --Pixelface (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:TFD says "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template." I contacted CBM, the creator of the template and I left a note on WT:SPOILER since that guideline mentions it. I'm sure JzG would be interested, since he said that template had consensus. And I'm sure that the editors who argued in favor of it at this TFD would also be interested. --Pixelface (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS says that "Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project" are friendly notices and are acceptable. Kusma, Phil Sandifer, Gavia immer, and Axem Titanium all argued in favor of the {{current fiction}} template at this TFD, and JzG said the {{current fiction}} template had consensus. I do not believe it would be disruptive canvassing to notify them. --Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That TFD ended about a month ago and the {{current fiction}} template was discussed extensively there. Perhaps you should notify everyone who took part in that TFD. --Pixelface (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Gah man, you know I'm no good with these sorts of policy guidelines or what not. I mean, I already have difficulty with editors who think "it should be that way because this other article does it this way", but each article has its own shape depending on how much info is avaliable. In any case, don't you think this whole anti-spoiler movement might have gotten out of hand? Wikipedia isn't censored, yes, but it should be easy to use too. But I leave it to you. So, not distracted from that peer review yet are you? Haha, naughty me and MovieMadness. Alientraveller (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the assist

Love, Sherlock.  ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Counts

If you are using an online counter, than it probably is not accurate. My real count is 28,100+, but Kate's Tool has it listed as lower. I can only assume this is because they don't keep track of your edits, but actually search Wikipedia's articles for your name in the edit history. Well, if a page is deleted then your history is theoretically gone, like when I deleted the sandbox that I was using to write Smallville (season 1), which had a few hundred edits. Your "My Preferences" has a more accurate edit counter. Maybe you'll be inside 400 with that number. :) Oh, if you had not noticed, I've been MIA for a few days. My computer is crappying-out on me (on g/f's laptop right now). I'm also going to my cousin's wedding today and won't be back till tomorrow. Anyway, the point was I'm giving an explaination for any tardy replies. Also, in case I don't get on here before then, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. That goes for everyone else that reads this as well; if you don't celebrate Christmas...well, suppliment any day you like. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Translations WP:OR?

Erik, you get around this burg more than I, so you probably know where to find this quickly. Are translations to English considered OR? I recall seeing something about a process for translating other-language-WP articles to en-WP, but can't find it now. There's an article which uses its French-WP analog as the starter dough (acknowledged by the primary contributor), so I'm unsure of its accuracy. Thoughts?
Jim Dunning | talk 15:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Transformers cast list

Would you chip in here? I think this would be a good way to continually improve our understanding of what a cast list is. Alientraveller (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Marketing

Sure, go start a new topic at WP:MOSFILMS. I definitely agree it's better to just link trailers for upcoming films, otherwise, only product placement or merchandise is notable. Alientraveller (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I Am Legend (film)

Are you serious? An edit war? This is crazy. Someone else has been posting false information which I am attempting to correct and you revert the content back to the false information and send me a warning? I have factually proved everything I have stated in the Talk section already. If you would read the changes that I made and follow the Talk thread I think you would certainly reinstate my edit and send me an apology. JohnnieYoung (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit over-the-top :) Excellent work as always. Alientraveller (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Hobbit

eric, since the hobbit movie has been confirmed, a separate article page must be made for it. --Cman7792 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard Candy

Hi, I came across Hard Candy (film) when cleaning up linkspam (TrailerAddict.com) and noticed that an effort was being made with this film article. It looks good so far -- I was wondering if you were in need of resources to continue improving the article, as that's my fortitude. Let me know if you do, and I can put a list together for you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am currently without a computer (mine died), so I really don't need anything until I get a new one.--SeizureDog (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:New Goblin front view.jpg

Erik, I saw your message in response to the bot. Do you need some help? —Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

PROD on Carry on London

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Carry on London, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested by recreation of the article after the first PROD deletion. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie peer review

Gran2 (talk · contribs) has opened a peer review. Would you be so kind as to comment? The article is really strong and could easily pass FAC now. Alientraveller (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. As for Sweeney Todd, well if someone wants to act like a school bully, then fine, I'm not watching the article anymore. I'm not here to be on the receiving end of MovieMadness's ego. Alientraveller (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've calmed down now. Alientraveller (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please help me?

You appear to be a voice of reason, so as a Wikipedia novice I'm turning to you for advice. Alientraveller keeps deleting reviews and truncating others I added to the article Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street without any reasonable justification (and then denies having done it despite the fact the history proves he has). It appears to me he simply will not be happy with the article unless it reads exactly the way he deems fit. On my talk page he accused me of having a problem with WP:OWN but I think it's he who's in the wrong here. On the Sweeney discussion page I asked him to direct me to policy re: how many reviews can be included and how long they can be and his answer was to use common sense, but apparently it's his common sense that rules. I'm new, I'm trying to learn the ropes, but I don't think he's treating my edits fairly. If I'm absolutely wrong I'll back off, but I honestly feel like he's bullying me. He keeps accusing me of making edits I never did, and he certainly isn't helping me by refusing to respond to my requests or answer my questions. Thank you very much for your help. MovieMadness (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the Sweeney talk page, but it still leaves me unsure if there is any specific policy re: the number and length of reviews that can be included in the critical reception section. If not, then who determines what "common sense" is and whose prevails when situations like this arise? Alientraveller unfortunately has been either unresponsive to my questions or flippant in his remarks instead of taking the opportunity to mentor a novice rather than trying to bully him into submission. Your guidance on this specific issue is appreciated. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Your civility and warm hearted patience amazes me to no end. Alientraveller (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that in future, but then he did say sorry and I gave him a warm welcome. Alientraveller (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Now by contrast, we have Editor2008 (talk · contribs), who's still sore over me giving him enough reliable sources to make him realize he made an unjustified edit days ago. Now there's someone I won't even bother to ask for an apology. Funny day this has been. Alientraveller (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Compass

I hope you understand that my revert was not intended to be disruptive, as I presented the passage on the talk page for wider analysis. This is just a mild dispute about content, so there's no need to suggest vandalism on anyone's part. (Speaking from experience, that kind of implication is never favorable.) I'm positive that all editors involved want an updated and accurate article, so hopefully the my revision is a step closer to that. Feel free to weigh in, or even revert wholesale -- I'll give you that one. ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Erik: That comment was not meant toward you. Previous to your justifiable edits there was an editor who has followed me around all day deleting without comment all of my edits. Please forgive me if you thought that I was directing the word "vandalism" at you because wasn't. Cheers!--InaMaka (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Paul  730 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Alientraveller (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Arcayne/ECard}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Eagleeye1

As an FYI, our Eagle Eye buddy got indefinitely blocked, so hopefully, we won't have to worry about his vandalism anymore (at least until he creates a new account). Oh, and Merry Christmas. Jauerback (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: American Gangster

Hello Erik, thank you for contacting me prior to editing the article. I feel that the cover should be included because it can be confused with Jay-Z's American Gangster. If you don't agree with me, feel free to revert my edit. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men (film)

Erik, I'm compiling full text of reviews and analyses here for this film. You're welcome to it if you're looking for source material (I'm still organizing and adding to it, so bear with me). What did you think of I Am Legend?
Jim Dunning | talk 16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just saw Legend, and last act wasn't as bad as some have maintained. It was a given they'd never go down the route of the novel, with either the plot or the ending, not with a $150 million budget, and arming oneself with that knowledge should have enabled one to try to enjoy the film for what it was. And what it was, was perfectly adequate. Ultimately more a War of the Worlds than a Children of Men, it nevertheless features some reasonable jump-scares enlivened by some a couple of nice shots (the quick cuts to the SnorriCam as Smith legs it from the CGI beasties) and a well-constructed (if derivative) NY playground. In summary then: not shit. 6/10. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 01:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I Am Legend

Has it been captioned yet, so you can see it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the comment could have been lifted straight from the talk page for Golden Compass, and the change appeared on my watchlist right above one for that, so it's not surprising the conflation occurred, as any religious allusions in I Am Legend are likely pretty vague, and I'd just been tidying some of the usual stuff from the Compass article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

With Ghost Busters vs. Ghostbusters, I figure we go for what people generally know it as, though truth be told, either would be fine with me. Both should definitely be mentioned in the lead, however. And yeah, it's been a good holiday. How about you? I'm still largely off-Wiki until next week, but I'm managing to find more time these last couple of days to pop in to check on things. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a detailed response at my parents, but their internet crapped out (computers are crashing left and right near me..lol). Anyway, it boiled down to me liking the last half and asking you want you didn't like specifically about Anna and the boy. What are your thoughts on the new Dark Knight trailer? There was a scene where Ledger is in the cell and he's basically smacking his lips together...it reminded me a lot of Nicholson's Joker.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I won't read the book...and if I do it will be far down the road and I won't remember being spoiled. The trailer wasn't captioned?! That sucks. He has a line, where Batman is on the batcycle and is driving at him. He says something to the idea of "come and get me", and that reminded me of Nicholson when Batman was bearing down on him with the batwing. Makes me wonder how may references and allusions to Burton's "Joker" they'll make. I'm working on the new computer. I'm supposed to go to the Geek Squad to appease my mother's mind, then, hopefully, her and I will sit down over the phone and build the same computer online. This way, when we get to the end we can see who will get the better interest rate. I'm still going to pay for it, but if she gets a better rate then she's going to order it and have the bills come to me. So, hopefully in a week (2 at the most) I'll be back online in a fuller capacity. I still need to sit down and watch that Fight Club commentary for you as well. Did you want the "writers commentary" first?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See, for me I liked the fact that they were less "vampiric", because that has become so cliched nowadays--especially with 30 Days of Night most recently in theaters. I thought it was interesting that the person that invented the "cure for cancer" was a woman, but her "cure" turned out to be the cause of the extinction of humankind. I wonder if there are any feminists outraged out there. lol. Especially since it was a "man" that was left to "fix" the mess. The dog reminded me of my own dog, except a bit more obedient and protective. I think this is a case where I like the changes from what your described, because it adds a scarier touch to the idea of total isolation. I mean, you can see the evolution of the "dark seekers" in the movie, which was obviously taken from how Anna was an evolved "vampire" in the book (as you described). I think with the changes it manages to give people that read the book a chance to see something different, but in the same vein as the book itself. I'm only doing it for my mother's sake. They say they have a "two day turn around" with diagnostics. I figure having them say "this is the problem", probably won't change my mind on getting a new computer. Basically, my current (dead) computer couldn't handle Windows Vista. I know there are kinks in Vista, but there were kinks in XP, and everything new--especially games--are becoming more and more "Vista only". I figure, I'll buy a better computer (with better RAM, graphics card, and more Hard drive space) with Vista...and if I have too many problems I'll just take their free downgrade to Windows XP. I figure, it's better to get Vista now, and if need be downgrade for free, than to get XP initially and have to buy Vista afterwards.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club CE

Hey Erik (btw wow, quick response to the giroux comment),

I've pretty much finished ce for grammar, style, and flow. The article was already so well-written and so thoroughly sourced that it was a pleasure (and relatively easy) to copyedit. Your input/cooperation was absolutely invaluable. If you make any significant additions to the article and would like me to help out, or if you have future articles that are languishing on the LOCE request page, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Again, thanks for the fun copyedit and happy editing! --Malachirality (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So when would you like your FAC? Alientraveller (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability and The Hobbit

Wikipedia:Notability (films) is a guideline, not a policy. Considering the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I don't understand why there isn't an article for this future film. There are plenty of reliable sources and press coverage. Guidelines are there to help us, they are not to be followed mechanically or to stop us having useful articles. --Oldak Quill 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply :). Given the precedents of Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV, I'm not going to argue any more. Perhaps the merged content could be moved into an article that would be about all Tolkein-derived films (the animated LOTR and the trilogy). --Oldak Quill 22:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Other Side

Hey Erik, and Merry X-mas! The reason that I reverted your post was because on IMDb it says, it started filming in November. I mistakenly said October in the edit summary, though. If I was mistaken, let me know!

Kevin (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late response. I must of read it wrong, my mistake. Sorry for any inconveniences!

Cheers, Kevin (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl (film)

I see that you reverted blanking by the creator of the (now deleted) Artemis Fowl (film) with the edit summary "revert disruptive blanking". When the creator and primary author of an article blanks the page, that is not disruptive unless deletion is controversial; rather, it is a recognized signal to delete under WP:CSD#G7. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wheelman

I understand but iam bit confused why you have created The Wheelman when you can simply click on move button and move to the correct link?. Another thing is why cant the article be The Wheelman (video game)?. The film and games can have two separate link. This is why i have reverted.--SkyWalker (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. Why not go and ask here to merge the article [4]. This is where i go when ever iam unable to move the page. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well iam ok with the merge. The problem was i would lose 11 edits which i made in that article :P. :). --SkyWalker (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I lost many edits before. I do not know why iam so concerned about the edits. :). Anyway it is settled you can delete that article. :). --SkyWalker (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So what is happening now?. I see you again redirected The Wheelman (film) to The Wheelman--SkyWalker (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Btw can you see any images on wikipedia?. I can only see few of the images. I do not even see a wikipedia logo. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes i do see images from other websites. Yesterday i was able to see everything on wikipedia. Today i don't see anything. Strange i know. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. I did not know that portal exist. I would gladly join and do the needful. So even you are interested in movie?. Nice to have some company. Also i can start viewing the image. I forgot to tell it you. :). --SkyWalker (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I sure do have lot of questions to ask :D. Also your user page certainly have lot of info that can be helpful to me. --SkyWalker (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw how come the movie the wheelman does not have any info?. It has been years since they gave any info. Is the movie and game cancelled or not?. It has been bothering me a lot without any info. --SkyWalker (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

Hello Erik,

I noticed you took down my link for the Hellboy 2 trailer saying it was spam. So, are you saying that I cannot put any external links for trailers? It is not meant as spam as I only would put links if there were none already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slewy (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am Legend error

Hay Erik, thanks for the message. oops my bad, that was actually accedental. I was reverting an edit...and I guess that the medical terminology was in the version that I used. My goal was to remove a POV edit that talked about how "an obvious alpha male was trying to get his woman back after she was captured" (simplified explination). I will go back to the talk page and clear up amy misunderstandings of my intentions.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor2008

It appears Editor2008 (talk · contribs) is stalking me and reverting all my edits in a jealous rage. What do I do? Alientraveller (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well let's he/she is civil enough. Alientraveller (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mario

I know, how fun is it!? :D It's so much better than Sunshine - I got bored of that really quickly - but Galaxy is far more special and, well... "Mario". When I was on the bee planet, I actually felt like I was playing Mario 64 again, which is the biggest compliment I could give to a Mario game. Twilight Princess is great too, not as original as I would have liked, it felt a little like a remake of Ocarina of Time but that's not a bad thing. Hopefully we'll be seeing a more ambitious Zelda game on the Wii. The Wii controls really breathe new life into these classic games, the bow and arrow in Zelda is brilliant IMO.  Paul  730 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm like you, I'm so OCD that I have to finish a galaxy before moving on. Not always though; my friend was over last night and he was playing through the spider galaxy, it didn't look that interesting so I never went back to it after he left. So far, the bee galaxy and the penguin galaxy are my favourites, I like the big free-roaming worlds. The Boo level is a little disappointing, I think. The Luigi cameo was nice, but the level isn't very fun. That race with the #@*!ing blue orbs was pissing me off, I had to shut the game off, lol. The Mario DS game I got for xmas features time traveling, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga - The Mario Bros go back in time to team up with their infant selves. Your idea of visiting different time periods sounds really fun though, kind of like TimeSplitters 2, only in the Mushroom Kingdom. With less guns, presumably. ;) The thing with Mario themes is you need something with lots of variety - Sunshines stupid tropical theme was really limiting and boring. I was worried about the space theme, especially since the trailers featured lots of tiny asteroids, but luckily the Marioverse is wacky enough that each galaxy is different and feels like you're still in the Mushroom Kingdom. Zelda gets better the further you go on, and the more items you get. The first few hours are a little dull, but once you get out of the forest, it improves immensely. I love Wario Ware, you look like a total idiot playing it and it's really stressful. Guarenteed laughing fits. I've become fascinated with the character of Mona, she's kind of Wario's girlfriend, like his version of Peach. I want her to be in Smash Bros. and Mario Kart.  Paul  730 02:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you like Mario RPGs, you should buy Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door along with a Gamecube controller and memory card. That's real epic RPG, lot's of character upgrades and stuff. It's really funny too, that gentle self-deprecating Nintento humour. If your Wii is linked up to the internet, you might want to download the first Paper Mario, I had that on N64 but I traded it for my friend's Mario Kart 64 and never got it back. :( I love the Paper Mario games, but I'm not sure about the new Wii one. It looks too platformery and not RPGey enough. I might get it, you never know. I'd like an Xbox, but I can't really afford it. I'm EXTREMELY excited for Brawl, it looks brilliant (especially the new Pokemon Trainer character). Melee was hardly ever out of my Gamecube, and Brawl looks much better visually with that kind of "if it ain't broke" classic Smash Bros gameplay. The video game I'm most looking forward to.  Paul  730 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, I would recommend Wind Waker, Metroid Prime (I'm not crazy about it, but everyone else is), Mario Kart: Double Dash, and you could probably get a lot out of Super Smash Bros. Melee before the new one comes out. Resident Evil 4 gets amazing reviews, I've not played it. I think it's been re-released on Wii though. Ooh, and TimeSplitters 2 = MUST-HAVE! Super Paper Mario gets good reviews as far as I know, but I'm not a big platformer fan. I prefer the adventure aspects of Mario 64/Galaxy to the platform bits. My Wii isn't online yet either, I'm pretty incompetent when it comes to technology, don't really know what to do. I tried setting it up but it asked for a password, I don't even know what password that would be... Durr. :P  Paul  730 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

For the award, my friend! Much appreciated. --J.D. (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)