User talk:Bovineboy2008/Archives/2011/July


Forks Over Knives

The "Over" in this film is properly capitalized. See, e.g., IMDb, official site, etc., etc. See also, e.g., One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (various book, film, play, etc.). I'm not sure what rule you think you're applying, but it's not correct in this case. Robert K S (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway (actress)

Thanks for the infobox trim: I should have had the courage of my conviction!--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Image help

Hi Bovineboy2008, I noticed that you moved the Tekken film article a bit ago [1], I just wanted to remind you that when you move articles if there are non-free images used on it to go through and check that all rationales have been updated. If they're not it is likely that they may end up removed from the article and subsequently deleted. I've gone ahead and done that one for you [2]. If you have any questions about this image or any other questions/problems with images please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you. Thanks!--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Crossmr. Much appreciated! BOVINEBOY2008 00:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2011, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

–MuZemike 14:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Marianne (2011 film)

G'day mate. It's clear that you have done a lot of fine work on editing film pages, and I wanted to congratulate you for that. I don't want you to think for a second that my reversions on the marianne page are attacks on your character. They are not. I think you are making a great contribution. For your information though, it might be a good idea to check out wp:External_links so that you can get an idea of what the wikipedia consensus is with respect to external linking.

With respect to Marianne (film), you have replaced a specific disambiguation with a general disambiguation. Perhaps you might like to consider the fact that a user who is looking for Marianne (film) is not looking for Marianne general, but rather might find it more useful to find that there are two films , one made in 1929 and another in 2011. I am not going to revert this until you have had some time to think about it.

Keep editing mate.JusticeSonic (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Justice. Thanks for the message. I am fully aware of what WP:EL advises, but the facebook profile and twitter feeds in the article are located on the main page of the official website, so there doesn't seem to be a need to include them as well. Also, links should not be in the body of an article per #2 of WP:ELPOINTS.
Also, the links that "Marianne (film)" are clearly located at Marianne, so if a user is looking for an article about a film titled "Marianne", they would be able to find those links on the general disambiguation link. Creating a secondary page with a selection of identical information is not necessary. Thanks for the responses! I was just about to message you better explaining my edits :) BOVINEBOY2008 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, reading through WP:ELOFFICIAL, I don't see where it says official links are allowed to be in an articles body. In fact, it explicitly states "Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article." I hope you consider reverting that so I don't have to. BOVINEBOY2008 22:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Cinema navigation boxes

Where is there a consensus not to use them? As many editors, myself included find the year listed linked at the bottom of articles very useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember this? BOVINEBOY2008 13:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

inre Bin Bulaye Baraati

Yes, I had covered all the alleged genre's in the lede, and do appreciate the cleanup[3] but as each of the reviews write of the crime film aspect and make mention of it being a comedy (even if a bad one) I'd like to include comedy film in the lede. Of course, I do see it as sometimes problematic when writing of Indian films, as Indian filmmakers tend to include everything they can in their projects... comedy, action, music, song, dance numbers, drama, pathos... and it's sometimes difficult to narrow the field for our readers to what's most important. What might you suggest in this case? Also, as the AFD nominator withdrew, and their are no !votes for delete, might you perhaps close the AFD itself? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a really tough question. While I don't think its necessary to list them all immediately in the lede (a problem I see in other articles), perhaps those genres mentioned in reviews as being integral to the film, or why the film is notable/unique should be noted somewhere in the lede. Perhaps saying like "Critics noted the use of comedy in the film was more effective than the director's previous films" or something to that effect (sorry, I didn't read the reviews). It seems like you have a better grasp on the topic, so I'll leave it to you, but they don't need to be literally the second thing mentioned in the article after the title, IMO.
And as for closing the AfD, I personally have never closed one, but wouldn't have a problem doing it. Is there some standard process that I go through? BOVINEBOY2008 20:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I have only closed one by carefully following the instructions at WP:NotEarly and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions (which closing process can be done by non-admins). As the nominator has changed to keep and there are are no votes to delete, it would fall under Wikipedia:Speedy keep. HOWEVER... I see that the nominator has himself done the close. Thanks for considering doing so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Glad it was resolved either way. BOVINEBOY2008 00:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Anonymous editing of Talk pages

I see by the talk page for Brave, 24.210.185.214 and 98.30.196.149 are no longer content with just disrupting the talk page for Cars 2. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that, too. Since it is not all that disruptive, I don't think its so necessary to look at blocks, but it may be worth exploring later. BOVINEBOY2008 16:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Talk page for Lloyd Scherr now as well. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Family Guy DVD

Hey Bovineboy, do you happen to have the first season on DVD. Pedro J. the rookie 00:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't. BOVINEBOY2008 02:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Orphaned non-free image File:Good Neighbours.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Good Neighbours.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bullet (2005 film)

Hello Bovineboy2008. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bullet (2005 film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3 requires recently created, and 2006 is not recent. Thank you. Courcelles 01:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What to Expect

How is What to Expect When You're Expecting (film) a stub?  :-\ —Mike Allen 02:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Question inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nephilim (film)

Glad you're okay with incubation. My own sense is that the article will meet NF before too long, even if WP:NotJustYet. My question has to do with editorial decisions to merge and redirect. Do we not have some such acceptable process for moving a premature article to incubation, other than through the result of AFD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering that. I read through WP:INCUBATION this morning and there doesn't seem to be any sort of nomination process. It seems that editors should just be bold and incubate them. Is there some process that I am not aware of? BOVINEBOY2008 19:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
My thought is that there should be. For example, if considering an action with which the author of, or contributors to, an article might disagree (IE: merges, redirects, etc.), we editors are highly encouraged to initiate discussion with the author and contributors on the article's talk page, as such actions act to prevent edit wars or unnessessary AFDs. It would seem prudent that the same should be true for premature articles that could otherwise benefit from incubation. If include instructions to politely suggest to authors of such (specially newcomers) that their contribution IS appreciated but that the better good is served by a temporary incubation, that would/could/should initiate discussion outside of the sometimes-drama of AFD, be far less bitey to newcomers, and serve the project by placing premature articles-with-potential into the prescribed place for collaborative effort. We might also create a talkpage template that states "Another editor has determined that this article may not be ready yet for mainspace and suggests it be incubated for further improvements". This template would naturally not be used on the obviously unsalvable, and could only be used on those article that met the criteria as currently laid out at WP:INCUBATION. Make sense? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely makes sense. I would be in favor of some sort of talkpage template, but I'll be talking to editors about Incubating articles that I think need it in the future. BOVINEBOY2008 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Me too. We might discuss including use of such a template in the Incubation section of WP:ATD, as a more proactive means of avoiding unneccessary AFDs and drama. If the template does not result in discussion after a few days, the incubation can them be done boldly. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. BOVINEBOY2008 21:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The American list tags

I've seen, and even seen the point of, avoid-list tags in the past, though I don't think I've ever tried to respond to such tags and for example restructure a section or article. Now I'm having a hard time time responding to your tags, particularly the "trivia" one, on this specialized section ("Differences between the book and film").

I happened to have added a number of bits to the article, and to the section in question, drawing mostly on the DVD commentary by the director, just before you added the tags. When I returned and saw the new tags, then, I felt the urge to try to respond. But now I don't see any easy-ish way to do so. One could just remove the dots and string the lines together, in effect, but that doesn't seem so helpful for the reader. Someone could produce a worked-through essay on the subject, but my next thought was, Why? The list seems to do the (specialized, as I've noted,) job pretty well. It does not seem as bad as some trivia lists I've seen, by any means, including those many named Trivia sections. Those I knew about (see my opening) and I now know they have their own CAT:TRIVIA and MOS:TRIVIA articles though I'm sorry I've not explored them much if at all, yet.

As I've written this, I've seen one factor about this specialized section that may have an impact, namely, it's by definition not likely (as far as I've seen, anywhere in Wikipedia) to be footnoted. The "raw material" for the points is the movie and the book. Page numbers and time-points are conceivable, of course, but as I say I've never seen much in that direction in Wikipedia.

Another angle: I found only six like-named "Differences ..." sections across Wikipedia. The one other I looked at had no dots and no tags and fewer points of comparison, but otherwise had a similiar list-like feel. I'm not that familiar with movie articles on Wikipedia but think it's the first time I personally have encountered this sort of section. And I did, if it's not obvious, basically like it.

I feel like you probably would like that worked-through essay which, alas, I can't see myself contributing at this point. On the other hand, maybe you're comfortable with long-term tagging of the section. It's not that sightly or as encouraging to other editors to contribute as I did. Are you at all inclined to pull back on your tagging, bowing to this lightly argued "specialized section" idea? Do you have any other thoughts on this? Leave all as is?

Thanks for your consideration. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Swliv. My concern with these kind of differences sections is that they are often in-universe. They compare two pieces of work that are similar, but inherently not the same, and try to list differences. A complete list of every little thing is trivial, and I think you would probably agree with this, so the goal is to write about why things were changed. Why did directors/producers/writers,etc... change certain parts of the book for the film adaptation? This gives the section a real-world connection and these differences should be covered in third-party independent reliable sources (or interviews). I can point out a good article with this section: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#Differences from the book. You'll notice in this section that it is in prose, which is the ideal for articles, and that all changes are accompanied with explanations and sources. I would work on the section, but alas I haven't seen the film yet and am currently working on several other projects. Hope that helps. BOVINEBOY2008 23:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks to you, too, BOVINEBOY. I don't see me taking the step you'd like to see but I can live with the aspiration as expressed, here and on the page. HPotter's not, in turn, my inclination for analysis, but it's good to have the referral. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Deeper and Deeper article ready for the Articlespace yet?

Dear Bovine Boy, User:MichaelQSchmidt suggested that I email you about a film article that I started. The article is about a 2010 independent film called Deeper and Deeper. I started the article a little over a year ago, and the film was moved to the incubator because apparently there was not enough information about the film on the web to meet full notability guidelines at the time. Over the course of the year, there has been more and more material that has become available online about the film, and a number of people have contributed to the development of the article. Would you be interested in taking a look at the article and seeing if it is ready for the Articlespace? Apparently there are restrictions against people who actually worked on the article being able to add the article to the Articlespace, which both Michael and I have done. Thank you very much for your time and I truly appreciate your help. Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keyboard warrior killer. I'll gladly take a look at the article. BOVINEBOY2008 01:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks great. It could still use a Critical reception and Production section, although I don't know what kind of sources are available. The film now appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rise of the Planet of the Apes.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rise of the Planet of the Apes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Disney Role Call

Hi, WikiProject Disney has been rather inactive recently. I saw that you are a member of the project. If you still consider yourself to be an active member, leave a response on the Project's talk page. Hopefully we can get the project up and running again. Thanks!--GroovySandwich 00:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing Amazon

On the Glee merchandise page a few days, you reverted an edit that had added release dates for season 2 DVDs which linked to Amazon, saying "please don't use amazon as a source". Is there a general Wikipedia prohibition against using Amazon in general, or specific country editions of it? The reason I ask is that I've seen many references on Glee pages that rely on various country versions of Amazon (including the US), referencing anything from DVD release dates to CD track lists. If Amazon is a deprecated source, either newly so or from a while back—one of the editors of far longer standing than I says she used Amazon for the first season DVDs—please let me know and when I run across it being referenced, I'll replace the reference with something more appropriate or edit the text to do without. Thanks for your help! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Because Amazon.com is a commercial merchandising source, it would not be best to cite it except for its existence. I can't seem to find where this is in the noticeboard, but I've certainly seen other editors cite Amazon as not a good reliable source. And certainly, if the release is notable, then it would get some coverage somewhere other than Amazon. BOVINEBOY2008 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the reply. If I may, a few questions from a contributor of four months standing: It may not be best to cite Amazon for anything but existence, but if they're one of many similar ones (i.e., many unaffiliated online retailers giving the same release information)? Would it be appropriate to say that although it isn't officially announced, major retailers give the release date as X, with a ref or two? At the moment, Amazon may be one of the only sources for the release dates, yet publishers learn to give Amazon reliable dates because it looks bad for everyone when incorrect dates are given...and because the DVDs and books and CDs arrive in the Amazon warehouse (and at brick and mortar stores) ahead of time and are embargoed until the release date so the item isn't sold prior to official release. Amazon isn't going to be perfect, but then again, even Fox press releases are notoriously prone to error. (Note: I'm not wedded to any of this, and haven't ever cited Amazon myself; I'm trying to understand the parameters of this sort of reference when I encounter it.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Normally, I don't use Amazon as a source because they are so far removed from official sources. Even though they have "release dates", that really is the date that Amazon could first sell the product. Citing Amazons release date is almost surmountable to keeping a sales directory, which Wikipedia is not. I might be stretching that interpretation, but I'd rather see official sources or secondary coverage. That kind of source would do a lot better in a Good Article review as well. BOVINEBOY2008 16:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Good to know; thanks again. The point about the Good Article review is especially well taken, in that any existing Amazon refs should certainly be replaced with better ones prior to initiating a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing IMDB Guinea Pigs (film)

Thanks for picking me up on the Guinea Pigs (film) page. I didn't know that you can't use imdb as a source. Thanks also for the earlier disambiguation change. I'm a relative newbie and your help is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearmat (talk • contribs) 12:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. If you have any question, feel free to ask them here. BOVINEBOY2008 12:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)