User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 4

Image:Arri16sr3.jpg

Hello, Girolamo Savonarola. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Arri16sr3.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Girolamo Savonarola/test. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on 35mm as main page FA

I know you've put in a lot of time and effort on that one - it's good to see it paying off. re:Image tweaks - I'm taking a look at the spec. I thought .1100" was the diameter of the circle that the curved edges made (see dia here: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/education/Film_Basics_Formats.pdf) - but I could be wrong. Open to suggestion. Megapixie 13:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyan on Anything Else

Film-tech has discussed it a bit here - there were some high-magenta prints made for special usage. All general release prints were cyan. Hope that clears it up! Girolamo Savonarola 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's basically what I meant. I'm well-aware of the FT thread, you'll notice I participated in it :)...If there were any EK or showprints or whatever that were printed high-magenta (and there were), then I don't think we should claim "released with only cyan tracks." My recollection on this is sketchy, but I believe I had information (from a source who I don't feel comfortable naming publicly) that several of those prints were in Technicolor's custody and were used in the theatrical release by theatres who contacted Technicolor with problems reading the cyan tracks (this appears to differ from Ted's comment, but perhaps it was took place after Ted's comment?). The source cited ("Commited to Cyan") does say "all 1200 prints," but I think they were referring to, as you say, general US domestic release prints.
Also, non-domestic US prints were still silver (cf. Antonio's comment on p.5). To me, the "only" suggests theatres without red LED readers were SOL for Anything Else, and that was not the case. I'm also under the impression that Woody Allen strikes a very large number of oneg prints, and that may relate here. I also don't think the "only" contributes much to the sentence, and we're safer off making a less narrow claim. jhawkinson 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think Anything Else was the first cyan? I thought it was in fact the first feature (not counting the short "Red Alert" and some Dolby test films)? I do admit to being confused about early studio prints; you're right that many seem to be hi-magenta, but I'm under the impression that the sound neg can't be optimized for both hi-magenta and cyan simultaneously, and it strains credulity to think that either there are seperate negs, or that they compromise on either the studio prints or on ALL the wide release prints... jhawkinson 03:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblocking

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

There has been an issue with autoblocks today; it should be fixed now.

Request handled by: —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. Please let me know if you have any further problems. Raul654 21:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I didn't vandalize, yet you wrote me a message that I did. 66.30.166.58 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Running time of Bandarchuk's War and Peace

Hello GS. As you take such good care of the list of longest running films I wanted to bring to your attention the following discussion about the running time for War and Peace. I recently found this message board [1] at IMDb to have an interesting and well reasoned (especially for IMDb) discussion about the various listed running times for this film. Wikipedia currently lists it as 484 minutes on the page for the film and at 511 minutes on the List of longest films by running time page. My question to you is should we bring these two figures into line? Now, I would tend to agree with the argument that the 511 minute version is a bit of an urban legend and if we re going to list it that it should be noted that there is no contempory evidence that it was ever this long. Of course, you may disagree with this. If you have different, or better, resources (and the time) to check this situation out it would be much appreciated. My thanks in advance for any assistance you can give and I will also understand if you are too busy to get to this right away. MarnetteD | Talk 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East/West move

Please remember to check for (and fix) any double redirects when you move an article. I fixed this one for you. Cheers, heqs ·:. 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Task forces

HI Giro. Thanks for your message. PLease note that I don't see the task forces as a project in which many members are involved (if there is then great) but I really intended e.g the Italian and Spanish cinema pages to highlight the work and articles that require attention on those respective cinemas -e.g missing films -films that require expansion, films that need cleanup and actors, directors that are missing or need infoboxes etc etc -this way it can only improve the focus of our general project. Basically I see them as pages of WP Film that can be used as a tool to improve these cinemas for organization. Really they are not like Indian cinema at all - in that there aren't intended as a major subproject -just a page for better organization. If you are concerned about sparse seperate pages I have no objection to merging all the pages into one -e.g Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Cinema task forces but if they are developed into long lists of films that requite work then seperate pages will be appropriate. Hope you are well, regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 08:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Filmmaking/Participants

Mr. Savonarola: Thanks for alphabetizing my username in the list of participants. I wasn't sure how to do this without possibly messing up the existing list.Thomprod 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistence of vision and movie camera

Hi, Girolamo. Thank you for your comment.

In your note to me, you say,

the supposed phenomenon is a physiological and not aesthetic event, I would be more comfortable if the references regarding this are more scientific in their background, and preferably several to show some consensus.

In the article I reference, one section begins[2]

...researchers in several disciplines were pursuing problems in their own fields which would inadvertently shed light upon problems such as the phenomenon of motion in the motion picture.

The authors then discuss the various evidence (including clinical evidence) discrediting persistence of vision and suggesting other explanations for the illusion of motion. Is this the sort of scientific references you're looking for? Also, that article was published by the Center for Cognitive Studies of the Moving Image, which is concerned with the scientific study (as in cognitive psychology) of physiological phenomena such as this.

Do you know of scientific evidence that supports the theory of persistence of vision?

Also, regarding

As far as I am aware, the persistence of vision article itself does not mention its would-be discrediting, for what it's worth.

That article mentions its discrediting in the second paragraph:

Although psychologists and physiologists have rejected the relevance of this theory to film viewership, film academics and theorists generally have not. Some scientists nowadays consider the entire theory a myth.

And it references the CCSMI article. So, I was just trying to make the two articles consistent.

Regards,

--Jeremy Butler 11:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

David Watkin (cinematographer) LGBT cat

I'm a little confused as to what is being asked for. The text does mention a "camp name" with a reference to his autobio, which I think does implicitly broach the subject while also being relevant to the subjects being discussed. It would seem a little out of sort to add a sentence to the effect of saying "oh, and by the way he's homosexual [citation provided]". I understand the fears of controversy re the Seigenthaler precedent, but Watkin's been out of the closet for about four decades and makes it quite obvious in his autobiography.

On another job in Stratford-on-Avon, for some reason the whole unit had dinner together and were ranged on both sides of a long refectory table. I was sitting at about the centre on one side, directly facing the gentleman from the advertising agency, who I noticed had been drinking a little. Suddenly in the middle of dinner he asked if I had any children.
"No."
"Are you married?"
"No."
"Are you queer?"
"Yes."
This shut him up as I'd thought it would and the silence that followed was swiftly broken by my gaffer electrician, Roy Rodhouse.
"Well he don't tell lies anyway."
I remembered from 1943 that interviews conducted across refectory tables were liable to consist of silly questions. So I had landed squarely outside the closet; I had been a half-hearted occupant anyway. -- Watkin, Why Is There..., p. 102-103.

Anyway... Girolamo Savonarola 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Girolamo! As you noted, WP:BLP requires the information to at least be cited. WP:LGBT has been going through the entire list of LGBT people to make sure they are sourced properly. The above info is perfect. I was thinking of changing the one line to say:
Subsequently, the array was named the "Wendy-light" in his honor — Watkin who is gay — uses the "camp name" Wendy.[1]
How does that strike you? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 10:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Arri-d20.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Arri-d20.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arri16sr3.jpg

I have tagged Image:Arri16sr3.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 10:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arri435x.jpg

I have tagged Image:Arri435x.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 10:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arricamst.jpg

I have tagged Image:Arricamst.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 10:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arricamstlt.jpg

I have tagged Image:Arricamstlt.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 10:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, or who you think you are. You sent me a message which I have just found, saying that whatever I entered or wrote, was a copyright infringement and would likely be deleted. The information I wrote was my own. It was from my own published work. Funny how anyone can write anything about anyone else and get away with it. What are you, the wikipolice? Girolamo Savonarola mind your own business. Do not send me any more messages. PaulBurns 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm Down? Calm down yourself. An editor? Thats a joke. I would NEVER tell another contributor that what they wrote was wrong. I would have to be an expert on basically everything in order to do that. You must be an expert on everything I guess. You shouldn't even be saying a word to people. It takes alot of nerve to do what you did. You think you are somethng you aren't. Comment again on anything I contribute, and I will deal with you in a more formal way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulBurns (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 July 2007

Replaceable fair use Image:Pvgenesis.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Pvgenesis.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Image:Pvxlstudio.jpg. --Abu badali (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please, until the leak is confirmed, don't mention it in the article. Thanks! Gscshoyru 15:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a WP:3RR warning. I know it's frustrating to be reverted by multiple people when you beleive you are in the right, but you cannot keep reverting back yourself. I currently count four times that you have inserted the leak comment today. Not counting the frist as a "revert", that still leaves you at 3RR for today, right at the limit. Currently the comment is standing, but if it is removed again today and you add it in once more, you will be in violation of WP:3RR policy, and will be subject to block by me or another admin. I've tried to keep this warning informal, but please be aware that you are at the limit. - TexasAndroid 17:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Thank you for informing me. Girolamo Savonarola 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally count it, because of the fact that, even though you added more info, you did add the original info for the fourth time. 3RR is not an exact science, and as an admin I generally try to avoid getting into the middle of 3RR situations. I generally prefer much more black and white vandalism fighting. :) But I saw your CIO/N alert, came and peaked at the situation. I'm mildly on your side on the general issue of including the leak information (though not strongly enough to wade into the battle, sorry.) But I saw you fast approaching the 3RR precipice, and felt I should give you a informal warning that you were possibly headed towards that cliff. I had no idea if you were aware of WP:3RR, unaware, or in the middle, but it looked like a alert *before* you went over the limit might be helpful.
3RR is not an exact science because it's intended to be flexible for admin use. It's not something that says that you are *allowed* three reverts a day, but is a more specific expression of the more general policy that edit warring is bad. So asking if a certain edit counts is kinda arguing about the wording of the policy, while skirting the intent of it, which is again that edit warring is bad. 3RR gives a more obvious cliff that you can go over, but people can and are blocked for edit warring who never violate 3RR. - TexasAndroid 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Random request

The matter may be outside my editorial interests, but not my personal ones. ;-)

In some sense, you're perfectly correct; matters that are widely reported in the media generally warrant mention in the article. It's worth pointing out, however, that the media is not covering a leak, but a claimed leak, and the publishers' response to it.

In other words, the question of whether or not the text actually constitutes a leak, or is merely a clever forgery, is largely irrelevant, and not something we'll really be in a position to determine until after the book is officially released in any case. What we're really interested in is reporting the actual activity here; something like this:

...a text purporting to be the seventh book was released; publishers responded by...

is better than something like this:

...the book was apparently leaked; publishers...

. We don't need to take a stance—even a moderate one—on whether the leak is real, and gain nothing from attempting to do so.

(Anyone actually posting the leaked materials themselves on-wiki needs to be hit with a big stick, of course; but I rather expect everyone involved understands that part.) Kirill 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page protection

Next time, take it to WP:RFPP instead of AN/I. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You struck me!

Just kidding. I saw what happened, that's cool. Here's my problem. IMDb says it has editorial oversight, which is what we look for, but they don't state either one of two things. They don't state their criteria, and they don't state their sources. Unless it's highly controversial, you can at least find the sources in a major news organizations like USA Today or some other place. IMDb isn't a news organization, just a simple database. Also, Wiki has editorial oversight, but we cannot cite ourselves. Someone editing the Charlie's Angel page has editorial oversight over that page, but we cannot cite that page as a reliable source for something on another page. We can use their sources, but them themselves. Sometimes IMDb gets their information from us. If someone posts something (not vandalism) that isn't verified, and a user submits it to IMDb and they post it there, does that make it reliable? It's like citing Answers.com. Have you ever searched for something and gotten "Answers.com" as one of the websites that contain your key word? They copy Wikipedia, and I mean they literally post the Wikipedia page, and if you are not familiar with the page then you might not pick on that fact. Since we don't know IMDb's fact checking methods, or their sources, and since they take information from any Joe, Bob, Sally and Rachel, then we cannot say they are reliable, because we have no idea how they oversee anything on the website.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kairo/Pulse

I moved Pulse (2001 film) back to Kairo (film), as there is a previous concensus against this move. If you still think the page should be moved, please take it to WP:RM. Regards. PC78 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas Carol

Since you have been part of discussion about the notability of future films, I've initiated a proposed merger for A Christmas Carol (2009 film). Would you consider the minimal content thus far to be merged under List of A Christmas Carol adaptations until enough notability can be asserted for the project (whether through production or release) to warrant the creation of the article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Not (f)

I've been looking at it. I'll read it more carefully in a bit. I'm not sure I understand his opposition other than it appears to be a more detailed version.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of missing films

Hi Sir. Giro. I have copied your list to me notebook and will try to begin ridding of the red links with some new articles. Its astonishing how much is still missing!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 11:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error page you provided me. Are these films are mixture of world films? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try again later. I wonder how many years it'll take to get every notable film onto wikipedia!!!. There never really seems to be that many new film articles -only the Indian guy stubbing Hindi films and the odd 1930s classic film fan. As I have been preoccupied with compiling the world film lists and work on the far east I haven;t focused on solely adding content for a long time. I'll have to get back to it sometime. You may want to know that somebody but the List of action films which another user is working on up for afd Hope you are well. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I must admit I am ashamed of some of the film lists on wikipedia. E.g List of films featuring Colgate toothpaste -that sort of thing -you know what I mean. Many I think are pointless. However I do think a list of films ordered by year with details on cast/actors for each country is very useful. For me - list of films by genre is not really my cup of tea and I don't think they are any where as useful as the lists by country but some users may find them useful -I'm not really going to help with the films by genre but thought it would be a waste to have them deleted. We also merged many of the loose comedy film lists into one main one series. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me I think its best to keep the lists as clearly defined and focused as possible. I think WP Films should begin to discuss about deleting many of the poorer lists which aren't what you'd expect from an encyclopedia. -I think of them as spam There are tons of them which I think should be deleted leaving what are clearly an asset for the project. Films by genre is OK I think but we really need a major film discussion on setting out the guidelines on the lists. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E.g List of Disney films set in London -this is a definate noonono!!!! Far to offbeat as with many of them - could this ever really becoming a wrothy encyclopeduc entry? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea but I thought the solution was to avoid overly complex categories and create lists instead. The only difference though is that many of the more decent lists contain info that cannot be displayed in a category with cast/director/ genre/studio etc. You'd have ny blessing though to get rid of many fo the more trivial lists leaving only the core -i.e by country ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance if you compare List of Disney films set in London to List of British films:1970s you'll see why one is encyclopedic and an asset to films and the other isn't. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh Meester - I'm with you!!. That sounds like a terrific idea. After all it is about the total access of any info at a touch of a button. It is quite amazing what can be done these days - the magical Polbot has upped the edit count by like 15,000 articles in only a few days. I wish we could create a filmbot to add all the missing films!!! Or am I just getting lazy in my old age!! I should follow that up at media wiki. I look forward to hearing any devleopments. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bond 23

More future film fun at Bond 23... it's up for an AfD. Since you were part of the discussion regarding WP:NF, I figured your input would be welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a lot of work to pull this off due to the notion of most contributors that if a film is announced, it will be made. I've recently had to merge/redirect Return to Castle Wolfenstein (film), The Sorcerer's Apprentice (film), Sub-Mariner (film), and Shazam! (film). I guess the notion is similar to the whole discussion about WP:SPOILER -- people keep adding spoiler tags months afterward. I actually keep red articles on my watchlist (the list of which is seen here), so that's how I've been able to detect and take action. I have a question, though: What if there is a film that does not have any source material? If it's a director-proposed project, I've found a setup like Neil Marshall useful (all the mentioned films there used to be film articles, and no progress has been made on any of them). However, what about something where a studio purchases a spec script or a scriptment, like Dubai, where can that information be placed? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a slow approach, honestly. AfDs for future films are notoriously ugly due to the false impressions of certain film production and differing interpretations of WP:CRYSTAL. I think if we pursue an agenda to reinforce WP:NF, we should take a look at several categories of future film articles that I've observed: 1) Future film articles that don't seem to be starting anytime soon (Silent Hill 2 (film) is an example), and 2) "popular" film articles like the franchise ones I watch. (The two categories can overlap.) We can be bold in merging the content; I've been able to do so without complaint, and when there is, I usually have discussion as seen at Talk:Airborn (film). I'm sure we can tackle the categories that list the 2008 films, 2009 films, and so forth. Maybe we should put together a shared list of what to clean up? I somewhat have some items at User:Erik/Clean-up to address (can you tell I keep on top of these things?), but I haven't had the time or focus to take care of them. I would probably avoid AfDs when possible, because most film articles created are based on some kind of truth, like the Variety coverage for Bond 23. (There's been a few hoaxes I've encountered, though.) Instead, we should boldly merge when possible, citing WP:NF in the edit summaries and be ready to show how the precedent's been implemented to any dissenters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll polish the subpage to be more specific in the future film categorization. I'll also see if Bignole will want to lend a hand as well. I would suggest a gradual implementation, such as not messing with film articles (at least, notable ones) that are at least close to production. An example that comes to mind is The Lovely Bones (film), where everything is pretty much set. This gradual implementation is something I've been trying to do in regard to the fair use rationale of non-free images on film articles. There was a crackdown on non-free images sometime ago, and I combated what seemed to be a brusque effort by an admin. You can read my comment to him here. Since then, I've attempted to ensure strong rationales for future/recent films' images, both directly and through reviews. My opinion is that the same should be done here, to kind of address the outlier articles and work our way back closer to the present. (I would also recommend avoiding attempting merges if a future film is generating the headline of the week; editors tend to interpret that into long-lasting notability.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(How hard is it to strip images from WP commercial releases if they are so concerned about future use?) I'm not sure if I understand what you meant about the usage of non-free images. Can you please clarify? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I agree that these reasons aren't very solid; they're usually tied to the attempt to keep Wikipedia's content free. I prefer the perspective of attempting to implement non-free images that will have real-world context. In most fleshed-out articles, I find that there's usually an image that can be paired with the available real-world text, usually some aspect of production. I feel that my approach makes the rationale "concrete"; basically, indisputably acceptable. I'm still not certain about what criteria to pursue for non-free images in plot summaries to make the claim indisputable, since it seems to me that any argument to fit a non-free image with the summary would be very subjective. I'm not rabidly opposed to the concept, but I try to fit in non-free images in another part of the article, where it's easier to tie in a fair use rationale with independent coverage. However, though, I would generally consider more than two images in the plot summary overkill, and act accordingly. What's your take on the nonsense? (Yes, I'm getting you started, hah.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes sense to me. That was the bone I picked with the admin I mentioned before; the initial issue was at 300 (film), and the admin challenged the images in the plot summary despite the fact that discussion among multiple editors took place as to what images would most appropriately reflect the film in that section. (That kind of challenge has since made me attempt to ensure solid rationales, as I've explained.) These clean-ups seem to be cyclic, when the mop is picked up in a big way (and usually unfamiliar with maintenance history) and starts mass-hunting articles. As Jar Jar Binks would say, "How wude!" Like I've said, slow integration seems easier to accept. Anyway, thanks for sharing your diatribe with me. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Spam

RedCamCentral.com is a valuable source of information about the Camera. They been tracking its development for over a year and continue to provide up to date technical information and valuable data.

This is not spam. The site has been a part of the Wikipedia page for many months now and resides right along the other forum, RedUser.net RedUser.net has not been asked to be removed. Both should be allowed to stay. Why are you so intent on removing RedCamCentral?

They come in peace and are not spamming anyone or breaking any rules. please let it go.

thank you.

Cardinale

Ah yes good. Claudia Cardinale is a personal favorite of mine. Gorgeous!!! and a great actress. I find her , well amazing!!! However her filmography is very underdeveloped and we need to add the missing films some time. Also can you give me the link to your personal missing film page -I need to add it to my to do list. I am quit einfuriated at the moment as looking through the lists somebody told me three months ago they would complete the Bulgarian list yet 3/4 of it was empty!!! -they didn't do a thing. 'm just having to do it now. What I did in five minutes they didn't do in three months!!! Hope you are well ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 11:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article titles will be sorted out when I come to add the films. I'll get there. I'll be watching to see if anybody does add them before them -it my experience I seriously doubt anyone else will bother. There only seems to be about ten project members who put in all the work!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 11:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember though we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 11:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right about some of them. E.g Circus World -of course we already have as it stars John Wayne and Rita Hayworth and this is not known by the Italian title. I'll always check to see if any have duplicate articles etc on the way -I've made a good start I've added about four or five films already today ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category intersection

Hi - I noticed your query on Brion's page. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Category intersection (a proposal for a category intersection feature put together by user:Sam and myself). I think the main sticking point for a category intersection feature is the possible performance impact (mostly of a null intersection between two very large categories). Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Category intersection, it's not obvious the performance issues are real. If you're willing to invest some development time in this, the UI models Sam and I proposed might be useful as a starting point. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the message - I appreciate your getting the word out. Seems that conversation there has been a bit moribund lately? Anyway, I was wondering if you had any idea what's going on with m:Extension:DynamicPageList? And where do the devs gather to decide what to add to the software actually running the en Wikipedia? Girolamo Savonarola 02:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the proposal seems to have stalled pending some development. I think the potential performance issues are the most troubling, so if you have MySQL experience that might be helpful. I doubt the DynamicPageList extension will get deployed on en.wikipedia, due to performance concerns (performance on en.wikipedia is a BIG deal). Brion Vibber is the lead developer and is the one who ultimately decides what extensions are deployed. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l is the mailing list where the developers hang out. MediaWiki is an open source project, I believe Brion is the overall coordinator. There's a developer's guide at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_MediaWiki_hacker. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exosome complex

Thanks for your comment on the FAC discussion above. As you can see, I've changed the title more or less according to your suggestion. If you have any additional suggestions, let me know. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Producers

This argument has gotten too subjective for me. No one's going to bend here unless outside opinion comes in. I personally think that the names thrown around in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are because of who they cater to -- those of the Hollywood industry. ("This project just came up, if you want to get involved, these people are who to call.") There's got to be a cap somewhere in that Infobox, and it seems easiest to limit it to "classic" producers unless circumstances reflect the need to add subsidiary producer roles like Spielberg for Transformers. I'm tired of reiterating that perspective; names alone just don't establish real-world context, and full credits are easily available at IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it would help to mention the situation to Bignole; Dawgknot seems pretty set on this, even though he's the only one that is advocating this. He's been reverted twice, and you're not in full agreement with him. He's going to fight for it despite lack of precedent because after investigating the recognized film articles, I don't see anything leaning toward listing all subsidiary producers. It's a mish-mash of choices, and obviously a case like 300 shows that there needs to be some discretion, at least for the sake of the Infobox's length. Hopefully we can get others' opinions -- perhaps the discussion should be copied from where it is now to the project mainspace? I think I'll do that now. Seems kind of long. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this, seeing that his contributions aren't focused on films. Probably someone that is new to the film articles (and the stalwart nature of yours truly). Our discussion doesn't really seem to be getting anywhere, and I know that after citing Variety and The Hollywood Reporter all this time, they mention these preliminary roles pretty indiscriminately. It's like a requisite "signature" -- even the newest one related to The Spirit repeats the information, without delving into their actual contributions. The problem with newcomers is that it's hard to share my experience in looking through and editing film articles -- items like executive producers are kind of "business as usual" details. Wish I could play the "I have experience" card, but it's not a very substantiated claim. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also fixed the producers' credits for The Terminator sample. One "classic" producer had her own article, while the other two producers (executive) did not (one link was a dud, apparently). I have a feeling all three were listed because three names didn't seem that bad to list at the time. I get the feeling, not sure how substantiated, that the business model to produce films has evolved to delegate more responsibilities (or at least credits them more fully). It seems that today's films have more overall producers (300 is such an example) than older ones. The disappointment is that it's hard to reach true consensus in this community; there weren't that many voices in the discussion about notability for films. We'll see if Dawgknot remains unconvinced or not about these credits... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So you have strong views about who does what. And so do I. It seems to me that if the industry trades repeatedly mention certain folks in their articles, that is the gold standard for determining who is relevant to the progress of a film. That isn't to disparage in any way the indispensible contributions of the best boy or the key grip or the production babies who get credits. Who, among editors of these articles, really knows? If reliable sources means anything, it must surely mean that article editors do not superimpose their speculation over why trade paper editors make their editorial choices. Plus there are many films in the film project that list all of the producers (but because of the limitations of the data box, they are inaccurately listed). I don't see any rational basis for excluding producers who are repeatedly mentioned in the press and blogs.

Rather than congregate with your friends and wonder about motives, let's try to make this work. Dawgknot 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your request at 3O

Unfortunately, we cannot accept requests to resolve anything other than bi-party disputes. Since your dispute involves at least four editors, it cannot be listed at 3O. If, after further discussion, the disagreement cannot be resolved, I recommend one of the alternatives in the DR process, such as a request for comment. Adrian M. H. 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Children of the Century

So I guess it would be wise to just shun him until he gives up and moves on? I fully understand you as I have had to deal with Wikipedians that go on never-ending arguments. Reginmund 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality film article

I thought you made some good points on the AfD. I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to flesh out reality film and I found quite a few articles, noted academics, etc. talking about reality film as a phenomenon and I have expanded the article drastically. I do not purport that reality films do not fall under the documentary genre, indeed, I have the documentary film category listed. More, I present notable opinions about reality films and how they differ from traditional documentaries. That is not to say that the article is complete or other notable POVs can't be inserted, but I would be interested in your taking a look and giving me any suggestions or opinions. It is heavily cited to many articles that discuss reality films as a genre (Variety, The Times of London, etc.) Let me know if you feel I did a decent job of fleshing it out more. Again, the article isn't meant to say that reality films are not documentaries, but to show the nuance in how traditional documentaries, such as Ken Burns's work, or Capturing the Friedmans, differs. At the very least, I have come up with an article with staying power, I just want it to be a good article. --David Shankbone 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know Salesman - but the idea is that it doesn't matter how I would distinguish between them. My goal was to find sources that discuss the issue and what they say. To be truthful, I didn't have any opinions on the topic, although in the initial dispute it struck me as odd that Jackass Number Two and Eddie Murphy Raw would be considered documentaries as I understand them. So I researched it, and I found a good deal of discussion about reality film as a sub-genre of documentaries, sometimes distinguished, sometimes not. That much makes the article meritorious. What I hope for, however, is a good article that is accurate, outside of my (or your) opinion of what we think documentaries are, or are not. Since you have knowledgeable opinions on the topic, I thought you would be a good person to ask for assistance with this. --David Shankbone 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good questions. Read the article, and then let's carry on the conversation. Having researched it a good bit, I think it would be enjoyable to talk about it for both of us. --David Shankbone 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future films

Is it realistic to put together a future film task force? :-P It would implement the WP:NF agenda and include general maintenance/clean-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I've had that one on my watchlist for a while in hopes of cleaning it up one day, but yeah, the article is terrible. Definitely needs better inline citation. I don't think stuff like the Cruise/Roberts speculation is really valid, but who knows. I'll put it on the WP:NF agenda, but I haven't had much time to do some serious wiki-work due to occupation with school. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Template:Film

I'm not trying to bite, but you absolutely cannot make so many changes to Template:Film. Use a sandbox and test any changes before implementing them. I just launched AWB to look up how many pages transclude Template:Film: 33,666. Every time the template is changed, big or small, all of those pages must be re-cached. I work a lot with templates, and I know that they can be finicky and require multiple saves and tries because of the limitation of the show preview feature, however, such a high-use template simply cannot be edited so many times. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. If you have tested code that you're sure will work, I'd be happy to implement it into Template:Film. Drop a note on my talk page or use {{editprotected}}. --MZMcBride 00:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the unprotection was requested; I just left a note on User:Philippe's talk page. The problem you're running into is that the type of code you're using takes time to populate the categories, especially on a high-use template like Template:Film. You should create dummy subpages and transclude test code there and ensure that the categories fill properly; something like User:Girolamo Savonarola/movie1, etc. or whatever. Sometimes it can take a couple of hours or more depending on the job queue for every page to be processed and updated. It may also require the purging of certain pages before it will work, especially pages you're watching to make sure that the changes work. If you open up the article on Annie Hall, it's stored in your cache, so when you go back to it without purging to see if the category has been added, it may seem like it hasn't when it really has. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina

Well a while ago I started adding films A-Z . I created the redirects first and then I aimed to fill everyone of them into articles not redirects. However I gradually got sidetracked from my enormous task and began to concentrate on America and Britain and France. Eventually these will all have articles. I shouldn't have added the categories to the redirects this was done ages ago when I was less experienced. But don't lecture me about my work - I've put a tremendous amount of effort into the film project consistently fdor some time and not one of you ever says good work or encourages me. I have recieved very little support help from the film project in drawing up these lists -I am am trying to format the history of film almost single handledy. Any rare message I get from WP:Films except from WiseKwai and Nehrams is always a negative one whether its about creating "unnecessary pages" for trying to improve French and SPanish film articles or templates or whatever. I am tired of the lack of support the prject shows me. I have put more work into it than some hundred project members combined. I admit I threw myself into the deep end with the Argentine films but when is somebody ever going to thank me for my general work?. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go to afd. All that needs doing is removing the categories. Eventually all these films will have pages. The system recognizes these films as existing. There's nothing wrong with a temporary redirect as long as it isn't categories which needs addressing!!!

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've begun cleanup by removing the categories. It'll be fixed in a day or two. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check A-F I've begun cleanup ok. Beleive it or not we do have seem decent articles amongst there. Give me a few days and it;ll be sorted ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little lost. Is the problem that all these Argentinian films are basically stubs, and that Blofeld thinks we might as well delete and redirect to a "List of" page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that all of these film articles just redirect to the various List of Argentine films of the 19X0's lists. I originally discovered this at Category:Argentine films when I found that more than 75% of the listed articles were italicized (ie redirects). Blofeld is currently de-cat'ing the redirects (if you look at the end of the category soon you'll still see a large number of italicized entries, which will give you an idea how many there originally were), but I'm dubious as to whether they should exist, as most of them only exist as links on the lists themselves. I think that they should be deleted because films without articles should have red links, many of these films may not even have enough data (or editor interest) to even become articles, and some of them although having IMDb entries, may not even meet our notability requirements. Girolamo Savonarola 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been clicking at random and I keep getting actual articles, but stub size. *Just checked* OOoh, I see what you are saying now. All the titles that are in italics in the category are redirects, the others are actual articles. I apparently was overlooking that, and always clicking the non-italicized ones. Hmm, deleting them to be redlinks? Wouldn't that just create the opportunity for them to be recreated as the stubs they were? I'm not sure how to handle this. I'd certainly post this on the WP:FILM talk page. Is there a WikiProject for Argentinian films? If so, I'd leave a message there as well. Other than that, I'm not sure. Maybe Erik will have more insight into how to address this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, these aren't stubs, they are nothing but redirects. A stub would be an improvement! Girolamo Savonarola 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was there anything there to begin with? Like, was it once a stub and someone just said "this is a stub, let's redirect it here." or were the redirects simply created for people that might be looking for that title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of them that I can tell ever had a stub. I doubt that he would delete a stub; he's not malicious. I think his idea is that it's better than every possible film title go to some page. Once again, overly fast implementation of giant quantities of information without mentioning it to anyone... Girolamo Savonarola 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly make it known at all the appropriate pages what is going on, but I can see the logic in his actions, but I see them in what you are saying as well. I'd try and seek out a more widespread consensus on how to address this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the problem: the list pages really should have all films linked. The problem is that this makes the redirects into self-directs, which is not permitted per guidelines. But if the articles aren't linked, how are editors to know that a) an article exists, and b)that there is no real article? Girolamo Savonarola 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have two catches. If the article is deleted, then searching specifically for that film will lead to the same outcome, a blank page, as it would if it was linked on the list page. But then, what if someone just heard the title from another person, but has no idea what it actually is...a redirect to a list of those titles might be beneficial. If the article redirects, I think they'll get the hint that a page does not exist for the article. If they choose to create the page, it wouldn't be hard for them to go to the talk page and ask someone for help in regards to removing the redirect. You should only create a redlink if there is a chance the article is actually going to be created, and you already said that some probably wouldn't meet notability guidelines, nor have editors interested enough in developing them in the first place. I think a redirect may be fine, but links should be removed from the list page, so that it is clear that there isn't a separate article for that film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it contravenes the style guidelines - article names which should have articles should be linked when in usage. Especially when the said article is in a list. To not link them is a problem too, because it provides no immediate way of editing/creating the said article. And while a link a general list of Argentine films is marginally useful, it's just that - marginally useful. What is being provided that the IMDb isn't? (IIRC, Blofeld is just pulling all of these off of the IMDb site anyway.) Think about the implications were we to do this for EVERY IMDb entry and EVERY national cinema. I think this is a bad idea, and it sets a bad precedent. Girolamo Savonarola 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the catch, if you delete all of the pages, you are then left with a huge "red" page. Though redlinks are good when a page may be created, excessive redlinks to pages that may never get created is not. IMDb is a database (as its name says), Wikipedia is not. Wiki isn't here to report on every film ever made (though it is turning into that), nor to compete with IMDb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, that's the problem. Blofeld is essentially doing giant data dumps. See things like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Italian Films and be horrified. Girolamo Savonarola 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikiproject keeping track of all the films without pages is fine, but I think there would be an issue if you have a mainspace article that was basically one giant redlink.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point - that list indicates a desire to have all IMDb entries in Italian cinema turned into articles. That is IMDb-ization in intention. We don't need an article on every film ever made, as you have said. Why should then all be in our "missing films list", then? Girolamo Savonarola 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right Giro. I have spent the last day making over 1,000 edits leaving a beautiful clean category. Hurrah for Blofeld. I am only too aware of my misthinking over six months ago when I thought of using categories. And I see what you mean about the inefficiency of it I wouldn't have had to spend the last day cleaning it up. However I do think you overreact about many things. Basically all that needed doing was to take out the categories. Now what was all the fuss about sitting on a fence and afd's and having to make several thousand edits yourself? And why make all the project aware of my mistake?? It paints me in a bad light. Surely you know an editor like me wouldn't lazily leave it you to fix -it was my problem so I quite rightly fixed it myself. I made about two errors since my time on wikipedia - one with the American categories and too with this. Note both were well over six months ago and the vast majority of my edits are in fact efficient and of major benefit to the encyclopediia. I have developed into a top editor in many peoples eyes - a lesser editor wouldn't have corrected a past mistake like this so quickly. When I said about constantly complaining from other editors I to be honest was talking about you only. 99% of comments have been positive - my barnstars reflect this. Several people have even said I am now one of the best on wikipedia. A lot changes in six months and I feel its time you started to recognize that most of my work indeed has been efficient and that my contribution is of major benefit not only to films but to the whole project. Surely you have noticed many of my constructive editing ranging from Itlaian films and actors to Building the List of American films. All of it including List of British films etc was created by me and I even if you don't feel proud of my work on here and I know many agree. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As for the missing List of Itlaian films and be horrified what on earth??? Can't you see that the page hasn't been touched for like a year???? Only A is listed and even then there is clearly message stating the intention to sort the films for notability eventually and take out all the films which are not notable enough for an article. It isn't November 2006 anymore Giro. Its September 2007 and things have moved on for the better . Please see my in my present editing state not when I was beginning on films a year ago thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that I didn't just add every title from Argentina from imdb. I spend a lot of time removing films which I bleieved were unsuitable and not up to notability for wikipedia. I must have taken out almost 1000 films. Soon enough these will all have articles but I must admit often I am very ambitious and often try to take on too much at once. But this shouldn't be seen as a bad thing . I do feel very hurt that you think it is uselesss when I have put so much effort into this11:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am asking why the project is not consulted ahead of time when you are planning on implementing large-scale edits? Girolamo Savonarola 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've often told the project about what I'm working on but nobody ever appears to ever give a toss to be honest with you. When I get little response or very few willing to support and build articles together even popular American film classics which I feel need work its clearly a waste of time. Now why do we have 400 members when only 20-30 max are active? Why are Nehrams, WiseKwai, Doctor Sunshine and Andreibajanas from thr group the only ones out of 400 who have ever showed an interest in my efforts? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely - it took me a month to get comments on the new template. All I'm saying is that announcing what you plan to do, and then waiting maybe a week for comments first (and acting on them) would be best - that way if someone like me does come poking around later, you can at least point out that it was mooted to the community, even if there was no response. I, for one, am interested in your work, even if I don't always comment. Girolamo Savonarola 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Giro. The problem is now over and yes I wish I hadn't made those directs now!!!! I don't intend creating anymore directs and I certianly don't intend adding any categories in the future!!! lol!!! I guess I don't like being told I've made a mistake -I don't take criticism well -I never have and probably never will. I promise in future I'll let you know personally if SPECTRE has any tricks up its sleeve. All the best and I hope we can work together in a good way. 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs)

Thank you. Likewise! :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roll call

Do you have any information set up for the coordinator positions or what you want the members to discuss/approve on the task forces? Just want to know, so we can send out the roll call as soon as possible. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks fine. I'm sure the WP:FIlMS coordinator page will differ based on how our project is set up, but that is a good starting point. How many coordinators did you have in mind? Do we need to get consensus first on the project's talk page about the number of positions, voting period lengths, terms, etc.? I'm sure if you started the basic framework, the discussion would probably involve more people if they had something to look off of. You can probably show them the same link to the WP:Military History coordinator page. Once the coordinator page is set up and we have consensus, I can include it in the roll call. --Nehrams2020 02:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine since the roll call will probably go on for at least a month so that we make sure that all members have plenty of time to switch their status. If necessary, since the coordinator positions are voted on by all members, we can send all the active members another message once the discussions are complete. Let me know when you've set up the page, and I'll see if Cbrown1023 is willing to use his bot to send out the notices. If he's unable, I'll send them out with AWB. --Nehrams2020 02:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll send it out whenever you're ready. I'll message Erik about this too, since he was the only other editor really involved in the discussion over the roll call. --Nehrams2020 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on developing the message that we'll send out today after I wake up and come back from seeing a movie. Cbrown1023 said he would be willing to use his bot to send out the messages, so once I format it and you approve it, I'll ask him to send it out. The coordinator page looks great and I hope a large portion of members get involved in the process. --Nehrams2020 09:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roll call message

Does this look good or is it missing anything? Also is the color alright, or do you think another color would be better? It also looks kind of long, so I don't know if we should mention the task forces or not. Let me know what it needs fixed or just fix it here and then I'll prepare to send it out. --Nehrams2020 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please move your name from the current members list to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Members section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the "Known to have left" section. Additionally, project consensus has agreed on creating coordinator positions within the project, and if you're interested in running, you can nominate yourself. Elections will run for two weeks and positions will be determined based on approval voting. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!"

How's this for slimmed down a bit?

"Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.


Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!"

What do you think? Girolamo Savonarola 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good, I'll let Cbrown1023 know that it is ready so he can start sending it out with his bot. Hopefully it will be sent out by this weekend. --Nehrams2020 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Odd question - opinion requested

Well, there's a reasonable school of thought which argues that any enumerable item (e.g. a film) should have a meaningful search result on Wikipedia—that any film not notable enough for an article should, if possible, still be created as a redirect to some place useful to a reader searching for it, in other words. For something like that, a list of films with some data provided for each is an excellent target for redirects.

So the real question is not, in my opinion, whether this should be done; but, rather, whether it was a good idea to do so now. The key issue is this: what proportion of the redirected films would need—or warrant—a separate article? If this proportion is high, creating the redirects now was likely a bad idea, as it will make it significantly more difficult for those articles to be created. (Redirects, particularly sectional redirects, tend to be quite baffling to the casual reader/editor.) If, on the other hand, only a few films could become articles, then going ahead and creating the needed redirects for everything (and simply accepting the few films warranting articles as being false positives in a sweep that's productive overall) would be a legitimate approach. Kirill 02:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But more importantly they temporarily direct to brief info until they have full articles. I believed this was a step in the right direction. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna spend the time to create redirects, wouldn't it just be worth it to create stubs? Girolamo Savonarola 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I' not here to think oh lets see how many edits I can do either I wish you'd stop bringing up my edit count. I am in it to build an encyclopedia of the highest standard that anybody has ever seen for the world to use. If I wanted real rewards I would work on a site that offered me financial rewards for my work. I do think its right that editors encourage each other and reward each other for their efforts. I always work better ina n environment where people are self supporting with each other. it is just nice to know that you are appreciated along the way - as for me this gives me more sense of purpose that my work is actually useful to people rather than somebody delibrately being cold towards any positivety whatsoever, well just for the sake of it and to act like an old school master. Isn't your steely attitude a little much? Its not about ego - when I know people are pleased with my progress it encourages me to continue working further. I just prefer more humane people. I'm just very sorry you find encouragement and friendly collaboration a vice ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why I wasn't praising you. That is my answer. Girolamo Savonarola 18:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I;m gonna praise you ok . Good work in assessing articles you;ve been shooting through Argentina and I like the way you go about organization even if you don't like to praise yourself. Hasta luego ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we only had 9 films when I started its not a bad start on Argentine films. But unfortunately there is'nt hardly any info in english available on the web particularly on older films. I wish there was someway we could just fill out the stubs with plots on every articles, for the more recent more info is available ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]