This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The August 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 is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you could copyedit A Beautiful Mind (film) really quick, I'd appreciate it. :) The Filmaker 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As a small note, I'd prefer that you had brought up your oppositions to the article in the peer review rather than waiting till I brought to FAC. However, I'm assuming that you just didn't get a chance to get a good luck at the article, or just plain didn't think of them at the time. Either way, no worries. The Filmaker 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning on going to see the remake? I've been having some trouble with the plot section and some editors who believe an 1100 word plot is better. I trimmed it to 600 words, but they want the other and think I should trim again, but around their words.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently playing it his way, and going through his version and removing or trimming things. It gets ridiculous when you have sentences like "he's moping around".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Think this covers it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, yeah. I realize that I probably make additions to my user page and you guys don't see them anymore because of the subpages that feed this one. Glad you got to see that. I think I run into enough people that could fill that section up, but I don't generally think about it until someone usually mentions it again to me. You're spread out on far more pages, I'm surprised yours hasn't filled up faster (not saying that you do a lot of stuff to cause problems, just that the law of statistics says you have a better chance of it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A lawyer? Oh please, you have to find that one. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I never saw Grandma's Boy, but holy crap thanks for showing me another page with a huge plot summary. LOL. I assume you may be speaking of Spartaz? If they don't wish to respond then I have no qualms about contacting another administrator to review the case. This is a time where I feel someone is not only getting away with 3RR, but almost a complete gross disregard for Wiki etiquette. They refuse to hold civilized discussion, practice a bit of OWN on the article in question. I just find it odd that they are showing making this AfD seem so personal to them. If an article improves, that shouldn't be a problem. They're refusing to even let the information pass on another page (like that makes a difference in the AfD). I cannot tell if they think the information should be deleted or if they think the page should simply not exist yet. Either way, their actions going about it concern me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I had to go read everything because I'm seeing warnings for not citing information (completely unlike you, and I couldn't find validation anywhere for it--proves my point I guess), edit warring (saw 2 reverts from you, no where near an edit war on your part, at least in my opinion of what an EW is), and Variety and Hollywood Reporter being unreliable--I trust your judgement when it comes to official information and scooper information so I couldn't find issue there either. It was a very interesting argument to read (er, find since it mysteriously deleted in some places. ;) ).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not want to respond immediately to Spartaz, as he seems to be using the threat of blocking you in an effort to clean this matter off his door step. I will let you see my response, but unless you say so, I shall not respond to him because his behavior (which I'm noticing isn't new, from his talk page) makes me think he'd just as easily block everyone just to shut them up and claim "fairness". His are italics, mine are bolded.

The first revert was removing an infobox. That's not the same as the last 3 edits. Ergo the 4 reverts are different. Only 4 diffs were presented for review and I'm neither expected nor required to do your homework for you. If I block him, I also have to block Erik to be fair as both of them made the same 3 reverts. I might end up giving Erik a shorter block but I'm sure you really don't want me going down that path do you? 3RR is for relatively straightforward reports - its not the place to address complex behavioural issues. That's what RFC, mediation and talk pages are for. Complex cases belong on ANI not AN3. (Spartaz)

Are we talking about the same page? The general Dragon Ball Z page? Erik's first edit was not a revert, it was the addition of completely new information (cited). Unless you are counting the fact that he used two of bits of information that were originally removed by Folken as a revert (but that is really debatable). Also, Folken didn't remove just an infobox in the article, he removed entire paragraphs (when you scroll down in that diff you see the rest of the paragraphs he removed). Even if you skip that one, he's had 5 other reverts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the article talk page history - there has been no discussion of this today - by anyone. Spartaz Humbug! 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has been (from the beginning) on Folken's talk page. Check his history for a completely report, since he's deleted some of the initial attempts at communication.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you there's been no discussion from Erik on my talk page about transfering the disputed content of an ongoing AfD in another article.

Also Bignole, it's not nice to ignore all my comments and answers to Erik that I wrote in the AfD. I deleted Erik's comment on my page because I didn't think it added more to the problem than we had already discussed in the AfD. Besides, I didn't like his tone, regarding me as an ignorant of the matter we were discussing, and not considering what I had already told him. Folken de Fanel 00:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Erik, I read that comment. There were a couple things that entised the "that's kind of condescending" synapses of my brain, but as a whole it wasn't (and I like to think I know a little about it, as you've seen plenty of comments from me that were less than favorable and most of your tone wasn't that bad). To Folken, I didn't read the AfD, I read the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It was what it was, no lasting injuries I would assume. lol. Take it easy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine. Thanks for the note on my talk page and sorry I missed the fact that it was promoted. I found the FAC from WP:TV so I've removed it from the tasks section there.-- Opark 77 11:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect back to article status since we have news references that an actual movie is in the offing, as well as an official announcement on Voltron.com back in June. (click know). VoL†ro/\/Force 05:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

well, isn't this news sufficent enough? VoL†ro/\/Force 06:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that he had made Point edits to 300 (he also made them to the Reagan article, which I just came across). I think he's doing it because he got spanked on some citation issues in the John Lennon and May Pang articles, and might be seeking some payback. My reply, caught up as it was in edit conflict with yours, was meant as a deflection. I know he was doing it to try and make a point that I am this guy who unfairly asks for citations in Wikipedia articles for that information which he thinks is common knowledge to all.
I am not really concerned about the person, as I haven't done anything wrong. In fact, I have been somewhat more restrained than in the past, and have made numerous attempts to point out the need for citation in the article, which he studiously ignores. After three attempts, I pretty much ignored the guy. If he wants to parrot my actions - especially those actions where I am doing the correct thing, who am I to question if he understands that he's getting it right on at least some occasions. Even a chimp will get the square peg in the square hole once in a while. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the other thing. I'll replace the comment onm the other user's page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, there's in my documents now. Good reads, sometimes they fail to make a point (is the movie good or bad?!) but interesting. You'll be honoured to know I'm going to model the article off your work on Road to Perdition, a film similiarly reliant on its cinematography. Alientraveller 18:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for someone to review Eva Green. How hard can it be to review an article on an actress? I also want to work on Schindler's List and Titanic, although I no longer really am bothered by FACs, considering they're too slow. I like the idea of "Themes" and "Interpretations", and will do so. I also want to work on some articles about spiritual concepts in Transformers, like the Allspark, Creation Matrix and Primus for something smaller, and a bit of a referencing exercise.

Late 2007 seems ok without too many big films to attend to, until mid-2008 when the blockbusters reign demanding my research. I'm not too bothered about Iron Man really: but me want Hulk to finally smash! And Prince Caspian, Indy 4 and TDK will demand my attention for their predecessors too. I have a notepad of everything on Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe's DVD. Alientraveller 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

did you get my dragonall z live action movie page deleted. that is not cool. and then you make your own article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, September 6, 2007

Eric, i copied the dragonball z live action film page and put it into the dragonballz article. I feel that the dragonall z article could be really good, but the categories are thrown all over the place and unorganized, and the entire thing is pretty much a mess. I think the article would be much better if you fixed it up because you are an expert and you have been doing this for a very long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, September 7, 2007

check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright Eric, you know what you are doing. I'll back off the the dragonballz cancellation page and let the processing go through. -cman7792

P.S. good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Folken is a very oppinionated person and he is stubborn. I've been listening to you about staying off the page and letting the process going through. Is there anything i can do to help right now? -cman7792

eric, i tried to put the dragonballz live action movie history on the dragonallz article, like you previously did. but that folken guy deleted it and he is pretty much going out of his way to start an edit war with me. u could tell by the comments he put on the dragonballz article histroy page. -once again, good luck -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

eric, i just removed all the info about the dragonall z live action film from the dragonball z page like you told me to. -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric, someone blocked Folken de Fanel. So he is out of the picture for 24 hours. -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I went on Folken de Fanel's discussion page and on the bottom of his page, it said the user is blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. -- Cman7792 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Allright, I removed my comment from User talk:BrenDJ discussion page. He actually reported me, but I could care less. I'm not going to get in troulbe for that.-- Cman7792 23:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am curious, if you could help... It seems that the majority of, for example, star trek and other television related articles, contain vast amounts of original research. It is my understanding that until a reputable third party has taken the time and effort to, say, document an episode of a television show, the article on that episode must only use verifiable information, such as tv guide summaries. As I understand it, someone watching an episode of a TV show, and then writing an article about that show, constitutes original research. The fact that these articles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Experience , as an example), contain so much uncited information is worrisome at best. If you could offer any kind of advice or input on this, or at least on flagging articles containing largely original research, that would be very helpful to me. Thankyou. 204.100.184.135 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erik, thanks for the offer. :) Uh, would that require e-mail or anything, coz mine is kinda broken at the moment? Sorry, I'm not real smart when it comes to computer stuff. :/ But yeah, that sounds helpful, so as long as it's not too much trouble for you. Thanks. Paul730 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just created an e-mail thingie at Yahoo Mail. Although my own, real, e-mail is still broken.  :( Oh well... yeah, that would be great thanks. Anything specific to characters (Buffy, Faith, Angel, Spike, Willow, Xander, Dawn, Giles, all the main ones), in particular character creation, impact on pop culture, general characterization. My Yahoo address is paul730buffyverse@yahoo.com. Thanks, this is really nice of you to help like this.  :) Paul730 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I recieved and printed out those sources you sent me. I still have to go through it with a highlighter to find the stuff I'm going to use, but at a glance there's loads of good info there. Lots of stuff about Buffy being a feminist icon and stuff, which is going to make a great article. Just wanted to say thanks again, especially since I contacted several editors (some of them admins, and several members of Wikiproject Buffyverse) for help writing my sandbox and received zero response. I'll stop gushing with gratitude now. ;) Paul730 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, yeah. I was looking through some of the sources User:Kweeket left me, and it mentioned all these historical figures and people I've never heared of. Confusing. And yes, collabaration is a must. Bignole, you, Kweeket, and User:Zythe have all been invaluable help. So anyway, have fun living the college life. :P Paul730 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't think it should be a task force, at least not called that. Task forces generally should be concentrating on a specific type of article (and by that I mean something constantly inherent to the subject; articles falling within a task force shouldn't have much cause to no longer fall within the task force scope, assuming the scope remains constant). But it could be a Department. The thing with Departments is that they tend to concentrate on larger issues such as Translation, Assessment, Categorization - general project-wide issues. I would actually say that the Future film patrolling is more of a maintenance task, and therefore could just be listed as a standing project task. Girolamo Savonarola 21:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Folken de Fanel 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussing with Folken

He seems to be insisting on discussing the matter on the DIsucssion page. Maybe trying that out, pointing out how the cites you are using are valid, might help a lot to deflate the situation. (S)He tends to go off half-cocked sometimes, so explaining what's what beforehand tneds to address the problem. Don't put up with any uncivil behavior, though. You aren't a vandal or an ass-clown, so you don't have to be treated as if you are. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Report him. Some people respond a lot better to the stick than carrot. I know you are a great and forgiving guy, but sometimes you need to pull the 'unforgiving bastard' hat out of the closet and wear it while you kick the bum to the curb. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Erik, I don't think drawing attention to the fact that, in order to game an AfD process, you're trying to transfer content from an article that's almost certainly going to be deleted because of "non verifiability", in another article, would be good for you. Nor would be to show that you're revert warring to force disputed and unverifiable content into the article and that you've ignored the comments at the AfD... Folken de Fanel 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I removed you're comment...You were talking to me as if I was just an ignorant. I know what Variety is, and I know that it can have its weaknesses. Telling me Variety is a trade paper and all that is useless, and a proof you haven't read a single word of what I wrote earlier. I know that nothing is to be immediately trusted when talking about the DB movie. In that case, there was no confirmation from Fox, and Fox confirmed they could not confirm the allegations from Moontreal gazette. That's not enough verifiable for WP, that's all.

Beside, I've never told you to start a revert war and to choose the AfD result you like, you've done it all by yourself, so don't try to put the blame on me. Folken de Fanel 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is something else you want to add, beside that you blindly trust Variety, why not ? But will it get us anywhere ? Folken de Fanel 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you, something else than saying that you blindly trust Variety to the point that the world ending tomorrow seems more likely to you than Variety being mistaken once since its creation. I know what you think about Variety, but I also know what i think of it, and in the case of the DB movie, it's unsubstanciated, that's all. Folken de Fanel 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, how do you know it ?

You see, that's precisely what I've been saying all along, and that you refused to take into account. There's no proof of anything, it's unsubstanciated, niether of us knows the truth, so while we've no definite answers, and while Fox keeps forgetting to confirm, or refusing to confirm, we should just see at as another rumor. We'll know very soon if it's a rumor or not, because if according to you Fox accepted to give info to Montreal Gazette, then it's because they're planning to make concrete announcements to the movie very soon. We'll find out then. But for now, it's just rumors denying what other rumors are denying...Just not notable enough.

Now, after talking all the night behind my back and trying to get me blocked because I stand in your way, could you just try to work "with me" (as someone else said) ? Folken de Fanel 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's you're opinion, and I don't agree with it. You don't agree with mine either. Period. Now, would you respect my opinion, instead of trying to impose yours by disrupting an ongoing AfD ? Folken de Fanel 00:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And Variety is an unreliable source which has been unconfirmed for 3 years, thus not notable for Wikipedia. Yes, Variety, as every source, as to be proven right, because there's no such thing as absolute truth. Good night. Folken de Fanel 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might ask, what is the AfD? As well, I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of the wiki info that regards Variety as unreliable/unconfirmed for the past three years? I have never heard of that, and I wouldn't want to make a mistake about adding a Variety reference. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved.

It just struck me that the article basically just said 'This movie might be happening, but maybe not', which didn't really seem like something verifiable to me and commented as such. I simply don't care. Beyond my comment, I have no involvement whatsoever. HalfShadow 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In essence, I primarily felt there wasn't enough (or really any) verifiable information to 'waste' an article on. The thing was literally a single paragraph; there's next to no information to report. As a section to the DBZ article, perhaps (though there's almost no information other than 'this might happen sometime'), but as it's own article it really would have been a wasted page without at least some meat to add to the bones. As I said, though, I'm not really involved; I just came across something and gave my two cents. HalfShadow 23:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It won't matter if I change my vote to keep or merge, since the page is too little to warrant a page, it will be merged or redirected anyway. I'll admit it looks better than before. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 04:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very wrong to ask someone to consider a vote, see WP:CANVASS. Even though you may be calling out to few users such as myself, you should let them decide by theirselves. I still stand by my vote, why don't you just scrap the info. there onto the DBZ article now if you're worried about a loss of information? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 18:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

by the way, the hobbit page has a plot that is too long. do you think you can fix it up, because you are good at these things. this is my final comment. -- Cman7792 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erik! Pleased to meet you. If I need any help with something, or need some proofreading done, I'll be sure to remember you! You're certainly more experienced, with an incredible 17,000 more edits than I...Thanks, Green451 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't, thanks. I do think people might not be perceptive as the consensus seems to be, but that's OK...no more {{spoiler}} tags for me at the top of Plot sections :) -- Lukobe 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I do highly recommend 3:10. Now I want to see the 50-year-old original! -- Lukobe 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I finished the reception section (not saying it doesn't need tweaking). I'll let you and Alien look it over before implementation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm newly hesitant to use Metacritic and RT's percentages, because of the varying number of reviewers that show up per film on their pages. If one film only gets 75 reviews, does its percentage weigh against someone that got 200 reviewers? How many reviewers on there? It makes me wearing. I could grab more positive ones if you like, is it uneven? I tried to make it equal in number, but then again I had to ditch 3 reviews because they sucked (and they were from some big magazine and news organizations). What about citing RT, but just not putting in that percentage..that could verify the positive response to the film. Or do you think we should put the percentages in?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll put in the RT information, and see about adding some more positives (how many more do you think should be added?). You sure about Metacritic though? It's pretty much RT's cream of the crop, with a few extra "creames". I don't really care where the plot comes any longer. If it works better coming after production, then that's cool. It seems that even if you do that, there will be someone that comes along and says "the plot should go first" and swaps it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That was kind of what got me to thinking more about the inclusion of RT, or the lack of inclusion as I was taking. I tested it's place out on the reception section. You can see what it looks like here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. What about Meta? Should I go ahead and include them?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Like so?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Do you think I should simply add them, or replace them with one of the ones already there?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Take your time. I still have that one you gave me from awhile back (check the top of the talk page). I hadn't gone through it when I finished (actually forgot about it till a little while ago).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I also have Paul's Total Film review and Gothetic Oedipus article you gave me awhile back. I'm going to move them over to the sandbox so I don't forget about them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem, I know how it is. I actually have 2 quizes and a reaction paper I have to write, which are due tomorrow. I'm postponing as long as I can.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried. I saw the comment about Ted (somebody). That's pretty interesting. I like when the actual people who are involved in some of these topics (if it can be proven that they are who they say they are) try to add things from their memory, which we cannot verify.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. It says do, and if there is opposition, then discuss.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shia Lebouf confirmed the title at the VMAs dummy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.218.205 ( talk) 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's alright! I'm not so good with references (as you probably could tell), so I appreciate that you fixed it. - theblueflamingo ^Squawk 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm excited. But what is a crystal skull? Alientraveller 08:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the film is gonna be fun, I don't have any overwhelming expectations, as I never speculated over which plot device, but I just want to see a film that is how they used to make 'em. Alientraveller 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh honestly, are these people still confusing rumours with reliable news? Alientraveller 15:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What a mess. Ideas? Girolamo Savonarola 07:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As you might be able to see from my user talk page, I seem to have inadvertently gotten into a tiff with Blofeld. During my attempts to tag for the task forces, I decided to start on the Argentine task force and came upon a giant mess at Category:Argentine films - the vast majority of the pages were italicized (aka redirects) that led to the lists like Argentine films of the 1950s. Essentially, almost every Argentine film had an article, but most of them merely redirected to the lists. Blofeld's solution to this is to just delete the cats from these articles, but I think that it's a big problem to keep vast swathes of redirect articles that are essentially acting as placeholders instead of redirecting for structural reasons such as titling or merges. If we don't have a real article for film X, it should have a red link, so that we know that we need to do that article. To get an idea of the damage, go to any of those Argentine films of the X's articles and look at the "What links here" section (I recommend the 500 at-a-time option); you'll see the damage. Should these go to mega-AfD? Also, I seem to have been a little less tactful (a weak spot of mine); would you be interested in joining the discussion? I'm just concerned that while Blofeld has many ambitious projects, most of which are useful, oftentimes the problem with things like this is that there is no community consultation - he just initiates it and then gets very defensive when editors like myself question the implementation. This is especially irksome in cases like this and in the past with the categorization mess, where mass reversion can take days. Anyway... Girolamo Savonarola 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been having a discussion with Girolamo Savonarola to set up the roll call, and just wanted to check with you on it since you were one of the main editors involved in the discussion on the WP:Films talk page. We're thinking of having the message point out that there are task forces that they can join which they can see in the sidebar on the main project page. Additionally, for the coordinator positions, Girolamo is planning on setting up a proposal page. The roll call message will include a notice directing members to take a look at the proposal if they wish and to join in on the discussion on whether or not to create the positions. We can then send another notice down the line once we have reached consensus and if there are elections. You can see the full discussion on Girolamo's talk page. Does this sound reasonable to you? -- Nehrams2020 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I noted you once again have re-added the information after I removed it. While that particular citation does include that particular cast member, the cast was lated updated after the publication of the article, and Jake is no longer a cast member (as evidenced by IMDB). In addition, I removed a fact in the article that has been said to be false, reading the article on that shows it (the article is poorly worded). I got these complaints via OTRS from somone involved in the production of the film. I would appreciate it if you did not revert me again, thanks. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]} 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was talking on the talk page for the movie "the seeker" and you erased what i said. You said your reason was because it was not for general discussion. Well tell me something, what is another word for talk? Discuss is the word, and a discussion is a general talk. It says talk on the page I talk on that page. Come on!! Also I was talking about the movie, because i was writing about it and comparing it to other forms of media. Is that something to delete over???? I request you undo what you undid what i wrote or I will undo what you undid that i wrote. Btw, this is a talk page is it not?? do you see me deleting things on talk pages? that is very rude very!!! You tell me before you delete my discussion. Aka Paradox 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you love fair use image debates, and I have one at the Superman Returns article. I think there isn't a reason to have the Superman flying image in the plot, we have enough images of Superman around the article already, but the uploader disagrees. Could you bring your unbiased opinion to Talk: Superman Returns#Fair use?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you just have to monitor all those articles. Hey now, I like a lot of Anderson's movies, they are usually entertaining. AvP, Mortal Kombat, Event Horizon (that one was a really good sci-fi thriller), the Resident Evil series, and Soldier. Come on, getting Kurt Russell to not speak is almost a gift right there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit, it was sharply different from the R-rated movies before it, but it was still entertaining. It was fun...just not scary, or suspensful like the previous Alien movies (Predator was never really either, it was always simply an action movie to me).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I have been putting off using it (just actually opened it to start reading it), and was thinking of asking if you if you thought it would be better suited to a "Themes" section. I think a themes section would be quite relevant, given the theme of "Fear" that plays throughout the film. So, should I go ahead and dump the reception section into the article, because the Oedipus link is the last one I had and I think we probably have enough reviews--unless you think otherwise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Reception" section replaced, it is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If we can get it featured before the release in 2008, then what we do (Raul has recently revamped the request page) is request that exact date, and then basically wait. He used to limit specific date requests to 5, but since he's changing the format he may expand that. If he doesn't, then we basically have to sit back and wait for the first available chance to request that date. Anyway, once we request, we just give the reasoning that it will be the release date of the new Batman film, and unless there is something more important requested for that date, it should be a shoe-in. He used to restrict requests to no longer than 30 days before the day you wanted, but since he's changing it I don't know how he will do it...because he removed that 30 day limit thing. You could put in a request relatively close to the day you wanted, so long as he didn't have something already selected and there was reasonable time for him to set it up. If we can get the article FA at least a few months before the release, we'll be just fine. We can put the request in a month or so before the release. At least, by that time he should have set up whatever new system he is working from and we'll know better how we have to request.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan (...*shudder*-"plan", that's a horrible term, it means "potential to be broken"). Anyway, that gives us several months to spruce up the article, given the exponential demands of college. Take it easy. I simply have work tomorrow, and since there is that stupid SurfControl, my Wiki business is severely limited.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the term "weirdos" in an edit summary to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media using the Wilhelm scream was incivil. Please avoid such discourtesies in the future, for all our sakes. -- Orange Mike 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. Any bits of info I get time to look at I'll be more than happy to work into the article. Best regards, Liquidfinale 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

From Within (film), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that From Within (film) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Within (film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of From Within (film) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy ( Help!) 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed you reverted an edit I listed. An unreliable source from a fictitious interview is used as the source that's being used, meanwhile a source relating to Cate Blanchett's actual role as the film's nemesis, which may not be listed as a reliable source, but it cites its reference as IESB, the source is there, and IESB is a reliable source, yet you felt the need to revert the edit, rather than verify the fact. Please assume good faith before simply considering an act of vandalism. I know you have about three times the amount of edits that I have and I should not have to tell you these things, and yet here I am. -- linca ^linca 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually refer to the article on USAToday as having been refuted by George Lucas: he said that much of the interview was fabricated (it happened, but they've made up stuff, kind of a situation akin to the film Shattered Glass), in particular the stuff about Cate Blanchett, which was untrue as she met George Lucas on the set of Lord of the Rings when he was "dropping by" and according to the Empire article I read (I can't remember when, probably about June... the fansite/IESB was the quickest one I could find when I added that) Lucas suggested her to Spielberg. Anyway, I'll try and fin the article rebuttal. I'm sure that about about June or July. -- linca ^linca 13:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Empires report on Crystal Skull was throwing out rumours for a laugh. Alientraveller 13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The one you're referring to was older: about March or so that Empire was throwing out rumours, but the one I'm referring to was just a general fact-based article. The Empire article said she was dealing in accents (and were implicit about use of plural, I remember), believed she'd be playing a Russian expatriate in China/Mongolia in parts, but that doesn't mean it's set in China or Mongolia, but could be filming there. No name was given, sadly. I'm going to try to find the article, but otherwise, I'm going to back out of this and simply allow time to let the truth unfold. -- linca ^linca 13:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

GMTA. :) By the way, I understand your reasoning for including the link of photos as a source due to the AfD process -- willing to let that play out. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Or as I sometimes say "great mind think alike, but then again, so do we" (though that last part is often muttered sotto vocce). There seems little reason not to fix articles in this situation and improve them, rather than toss them in the trash. WP:NF clearly recognizes that unreleased films that have commenced shooting and have reliable sources meet standards of notability. Hence the source I added and my !vote to keep. Thank you for all of your contributions. Alansohn 16:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Erik, I was wondering if you had considered running for one of the Coordinator spots. I think that you have a good perspective of the forest from the trees and are quite an asset for the project already - it seems like a natural step. Girolamo Savonarola 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your last comment on my talk page. Girolamo Savonarola 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kryptonsite pointed us readers to Rob Cohen's personal blog for the upcoming film (because it's being written, or executive produced by Smallville EPs Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. Anyway, I wasn't aware of whether you knew about it or not, and I think I saw some edits to that page by you before. The "other stuff" involved your opinion of me removing that "The film had generally positive reviews" from the reception section of Batman Begins. I was basing it on my understanding of WP:NPOV's fairness of tone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That was kind of why I removed it. I felt saying "it has an 84& approval rating from critics, based on ...." was an objective approach to showing it was positively received, instead of this rather "plant" of "Critics loved this film"-esque type of wording in the preceding sentence. I think the lead would best be a summarization of what they actually said, as you suggested.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So, I've been wanting to replace the images for the Batsuit and Tumbler, with ones that are a little more detailed (and clear in their design). I was hoping to capture some images from the DVD, but for some reason it won't let me do that on PowerDVD. Anyway, I did find these images, though I don't know who owns them. Also, I found these-- [1], [2], [3], ****, ****, [4], [5], ****, ****, [--on Flickr, but I don't know what the license is on any of them. Are you familiar with Flickr? I read that we may have to contact those uploaders personally. One of those is on Wiki Commons ( Image:Batmobile.jpg), but it isn't the best one of the bunch. The "****" ones say "some rights reserved", instead of the "all rights reserved" the others state.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the one you picked out, and this one and the second one down on this page. I guess, if we go with FlickR, I could just sign-in (I think my Yahoo account will work for that) and contact that uploader to find out if it's their image and if they will upload it to Wiki Commons or Wikipedia and release it to the public.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you get all those sources for your university library search engine? Oh, and I just sent the uploaders of the image you liked, and the second choice that I picked out, on FlickR, a message requesting that they upload their images to Wikipedia under a free license. Here's hoping that they are nice people that like to share. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that I have access to it. It requires a login, that I assume is school based (because I didn't see a "register now"), and I couldn't find it associated with Florida State. We have other search engines that are similar, but it appears that we don't have that specific one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but I thought it was just a different search engine that was just similar to the one you used. The signature key is still in the insert box, at least it is on my machine. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And so, shall we replace? lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The ass end as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly where I was putting it when you sent me a message, lol. As you would say, GMTA.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I just know those are flaps, and it has an engine. I'm sure they built models that had everything on them, they just were not all functioning. Like, the flap model is probably the only model where the flaps actually rotate and adjust for the jump, and every other model they are simply stationary (my assumption).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends. We may not be able to get it up on that day, maybe that week. It always comes down to what Raul decides, unless he is away and delegates someone else. Also, the Smallville pilot isn't the only one up there requesting a date that coincides with the release of something, so I don't know why that article got picked on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were going to mention that just now..lol. I was the one that removed it initially for not having sources. Now, he's using the opinion of BOF's Jeff (remember him) to explain why things happened.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So-after viewing the google link-are you thinking the same thing I am about all those additions? The interview with whatever his name is looks fine to use, because it's a primary source. This however is crap. I'm sorry, Jett isn't a staff writer for an actual news organization, and has no editorial oversight that I can see, and since he doesn't show his sources...If you cannot tell already, I'm leaning toward cutting it out. I wouldn't cite Kryptonsite's Craig Bryne in this capacity, and he's probably the equivalent to Jett on BOF, which is accurate, but not reliably verified.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The only thing I had big issue with was the copying of the Miller script, which is copied over at Batman:Year One as well. But yeah, the film series pages send to help out a lot for providing a place for that future film info. But, if The Dark Knight turns out to be better than Batman Begins, then I'm going to have to worry about a third installment (ala the Spider-Man trilogy which went: good, great, diminished)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what I'd like from a third Batman film. Two-Face, Joker playing Lecter to Harley Quinn's Clarice (Eva Green or Zooey Deschanel possibly) and Catwoman. But I always suspect maybe Dick Grayson will pop up to foreshadow a new era when someone else takes over as director.

I wonder that when Nolan leaves, numerous editors will be trying to convince us the series is rebooting (again). I'm kinda curious as to what will happen in June when the Hulk returns to smash up the box office: in my view, it still exists in the loose continuity like any heroic series, even if it's an entirely different film. *cough*South America*cough* Alientraveller 10:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Nolan would learn from everyone else's mistakes in that you don't have that many primary villains. It's one thing to have many antagonists, like in the first film, but not that many supervillains. I'm curious about the Hulk myself. Ang Lee's wasn't that bad except for the comic book panel editing he did, and horrible casting with Jennifer Connelly (sp) and Bana.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. Personally, I would remove "box office bomb", as it's a pretty negative thing to say. It can be written more neutrally, by stating a comparison between what the film cost and how much it made worldwide.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the best you got? LOL. It actually took me a minute to realize what the problem was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That'll be fun to read. I put that userbox on my page, and added the link to the discussion. What's this deal with Slither? Seems like a lot of fuss over something not that uncommon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was picking up bits and pieces from reading that discussion. I think linking to the page is fine, but just coming out and saying "this is a box office bomb" is probably a bit too negative. I prefer just pointing to statistics and saying "see for yourself."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

When will they learn? You can make quality films with low budgets, even CGI extravaganzas (sp). Everyone is so greedy. This ridiculous strike annoys me more and more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had to read that article that editor wrote (the one that came to you) just to find out the details. I figured it had to be about the money, as that is usually the case. If the article is accurate, then I would assume it would be a simple "yes" for the producers. The guilds just want all the royalties they get to include the new forms of media, which they currently don't. I look back at the dawn of the slasher film era. Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Halloween, Friday the 13th...they were all made on budgets less than a million dollars. I mean, even the remakes for those first two had slim budgets. I mean, stepping into CGI, if the budget for Transformers really was 147 million, that's kind of small compared to the other big budget projects that came out in the summer, and this movie relied much more heavily on CGI. That to me says that it always comes down to who is in your movie, because CGI work is become cheaper, but the stars are becoming more expensive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think that would be better, I'm all for it. But, it always seems like we start talking about things related to articles and just end up on wild tangents that take up about 10kb of space..lol. As for Shia, yeah, he looks kind of like one of those grease hounds that pimp out their crack hoes. Ford looks like he stepped out of his retirement home for a costume party.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He looks greasy. It's just so... Guido. I thought Karen had aged well also. (here's a new tangent..lol, sorry). Ever watch some old movie and then go see what the lead actress looks like now? It's like a time game to see who will age well and who looks like they could be playing the part of the alien in the new Aliens vs. Predator movie. I wish I could think of a good one off the top of my head, but it's late so my mind is going into shutdown mode. Man, I was just looking at one the other month that made me think, "did she become over exposed to radiation?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if LaBeouf grows a beard over the course of the film, as early images showed him looking very slick. I think Harrison is in very good shape: the only difference I could find was the grey hair and slight old man bloat in his cheeks. But man, I couldn't do three hours at the gym: I'm more of a runner myself. The dude still has a younger man's spirit in addition to his world weary wisdom, which bodes well for his performance. Alientraveller 09:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like Winstone's character: good replacement for Sallah, who's probably enjoying his retirement in 1957. I just hope Shia doesn't look like that for Transformers 2. How many years should be set after? I'd love a good few years, in real time, so we can see an Autobot City. An underground city preferrably. Alientraveller 11:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Autobot City is in the 1986 film, but I was thinking of an underground base as in the Ark. I imagine Starscream will come back with Skywarp and Thundercracker, as it'll be cheaper to have three similiar computer models, and the US airforce would supply three raptors. Starscream I imagine would want nothing to do with Earth, but Soundwave retrieving Megatron would force his hand, as he wishes to remain leader. So I imagine Transformers 2 focuses on Decepticon civil war, and maybe Soundwave and Barricade would team up with an evil corporate human. I'd imagine Megatron would be used as a conduit to combine the Constructicons. All the while, the Autobots have to convince the Dinobots to help humanity.

So there's my wishful thinking. I would like Bay to stay on, because I was really happy with the aesthetic he created for the robots: they looked really organic in motion and appearance: Megatron looked like a lion. I just hope stuff like masturbation and lubricating will go, because the sequel will definitely be darker. I'm most excited about seeing Grimlock, the Dinobot leader, because of his Decepticon-like attitude. Alientraveller 11:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dinobots can be easily introduced as having tried to locate Megatron, but also succumbing to the ice. I love why they pick dinosaurs in the IDW comics: "Could we have something with a little more bite?" I bet the Dinobots will force the Autobots to reveal themselves. Plus, Grimlock can really interact well with Optimus, with his arrogance, before admitting he actually envies the inspiring qualities of Prime as a leader. Ultimately, a sequel should show Prime's inner turmoil over Jazz, Megatron, and humanity's potential damnation with the Autobot/Decepticon exodus.

I would also comment that Bay's direction was a little sloppy, even if the acting, writing and special effects were all superb. Sometimes gags didn't time right, it was a little hard to see some of the action (though I could still tell the robots apart) but overall the film succeeds in spite of that. I'm definitely a happy bunny because of the characterization of the Autobots, Megatron and Frenzy and how the film was structured as about Prime discovering and appreciating us. The way the film kept intercutting almost lent it an aspect of the Transformers watching over us, if mostly nefariously. I definitely like the sense of presence in this first film, considering the relatively tight budget, and frankly they'd be stupid not to cut loose for the sequel. Alientraveller 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So it appears the "geniuses" are going through with the JLA movie and they plan to start filming in February. *Sigh* Am I the only one that thinks they are going to ruin the introductions of all these characters because they obviously won't have time to introduce them in this movie, and any movie after this will be irrelevant because of the freshness of the characters in people's minds.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was reading awhile back an article on television shows that should have been movies, and Smallville was on the list. One of the things they pointed out was that the television shows has more exciting action sequences than Superman Returns ever did. My g/f and I just finished watching the sixth season over the weekend (second time for me) and I was watching that and going, "wow, I don't think I've actually seen a Superman movie where there was any good action sequences." Those movies always tend to focus on Superman saving the world from Lex Luthor, but never really doing "battle". Superman II had battle scenes, but fight sequences in the early 80s weren't all that exciting, especially not when the Salkinds were making those Superman movies. I just think this JLA movie is not only going to wreck the introduction of several characters (I read there are 8 main characters...*rolls eyes*...yeah, that's going to work well) but it's going to step on the toes of Smallville, Nolan's Batman films, and even Singer's Superman films. From what I've read, there haven't even been any confirmed reports that Green Lantern will even be in this film. I always read things like "and possible GL". I did read that they abandoned that photo-capture method they were going to do, and now it is live-action again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Singer kind of dropped the ball with his movie. That's why I like Smallville, especially the later seasons because they're introducing these future superheroes (like The Flash, Aquaman, Cyborg, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter) before the world actually knows about them (well, they know about Green Arrow in some places). You even got the first formation of the Justice League in season six, and I wouldn't be surprised if the JLA movie draws comparisons to the "Justice" episode of Smallville for that very reason. Plus, Gough and Millar have managed to make these characters as realistic as most can be, especially when you think about Martian Manhunter being on the show. Plus, since they aren't using Bale and Routh, it is probably a safe bet that they aren't using those two costumes either. While I don't mind a tweaking of the Superman costume, as I didn't care for the dark, rubbery red cape, or the collar line that went halfway up his neck...I liked the Nolan design of the Batsuit (the suit, not the cowl so much) and the new one for TDK looks even better. For some reason I just picture Adam West coming around the corner for this new movie. Dear lord, please don't let it be like this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reported them for violating the 3RR. So, that's in the motion. I made mention, and linked to the report of sock puppetry as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize I needed to do that. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I saw his name. I was afraid to look and see if he was the reporter or the reportee. And Viriditas and him are at it again no less...lol. Those two should just avoid each other at all costs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, for some reason FAotD get posted the evening before. It's already brought a new wave of attention to the article, which has allowed for more eyes to copy edit everything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And unfortunately some unwarranted attention from vandals.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Both IMDb and Box Office Mojo have the release date as June 27. It seems obvious that release has been moved up. annoynmous 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Could use some help over there, the move wars are getting ridiculous. There's no cite for that being the release title ,but peopel keep moving it. ThuranX 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there were citations given for 'War Zone' being a new working title... but there's been no studio statement that War Zone will be the official title. I searched for them a ocuple weeks ago, found nothing, and we continue to have page moves occur without citations. This 'War Zone' Title was attahed as a new working title at one point, then the rumor sites started using it casually, now most wiki editors seem to think it's official. ThuranX 22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Erik - Question for you. Noticed that you just removed all of my posts. And after reading the guidelines, I sadly agree that you were correct in doing so. I was attempting to be careful and relevant, but was breaking the rules none-the-less. So here's my question... ReelzChannel is a new cable TV network with tons of great movie content (interviews, red carpets, festival and award coverage, etc.). How do we set up a partnership with Wikipedia or the editors similar to IMDB (or RottenTomatos, MetaCritic)? I believe that we have some valuable content that could enhance some of your movie entries. Thanks for you time, and sorry for not adhering to the guidlines. Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eparadis ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for my first barnstar Erik! I'm glad you appreciate my edits to reception sections. Although I could probably reword them a little, they tend to look the same from article to article (until I add actual quotes from critics). -- Pixelface 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to italicize newspaper titles. I'll be sure to do it from now on. I'll also look back at some of my edits and add them. -- Pixelface 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. Comic FAs are too few and seem hard to maintain, so high-quality, well-referenced work is appreciated. I do my part by working on and off on Batman to bring it to current FA standards. Not sure if you've noticed, but in my editing today I cited the Wright book and insert references to articles from Time and The New York Times (extensive archives, those two). WesleyDodds 11:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As for FAR: I think we can hold off on that. I'm willing to help you on the article. Let's see what we can do first. From experience, let me say it's much more fun and enjoyable working at your own pace than having to go through FAC/FARC while rewriting and tracking down sources. WesleyDodds 11:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the basic layout of the article can stay. It's the sources that are the main issue. Luckily you've gathered quite a bit of them. On my end I've already searched through the time.com and nytimes.com archive and cited what i felt was valuable. I also own Wright book; even though it only talks about Watchmen for three pages, it's quite valuable. I could also check out my university library, but I'm not sure how many books there would discuss Watchmen; most are either really broad (superheroes or comics in general) or very specific (excellent sources on Batman and Wonder Woman). I might be able to find some essays. Once again, hold off on the FAR. I've participated in four FARs (two of which just finished) and all of those articles have been kept at FA status. I figure we can just finish the draft and paste it in the namespace with no problem. Only if there's some deficiencies we can't overcome ourselves do we need to take it to FAR. WesleyDodds 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I broached the subject of working on Batman (1989 film) with Alientraveller, but he wasn't too interested. Would that be of interest to you as a possible FA collaboration project? I have access to some excellent sources. WesleyDodds 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms timeline, this would be a long-term project, probably reaching completion by the end of the year. My priorities lie with Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music, and I've got at least three articles ( R.E.M. (band), Joy Division, and Loveless (album)) I'm working to get to FA status by the end of the year. I could do a major revamp of Watchmen on your temppage using the sources available in the next week, but like you I'm in no rush. Now that I know someone else is interested in bringing the article up to standard that will make things easier. WesleyDodds 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of merging the character pages into the list of Watchmen characers, with the possible exception of Rorschach, who has received some real-world analysis (for example, the Wright book spends two paragraphs talking about that character specifically). WesleyDodds 07:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

ISBN  0-8018-7450-5. Sorry about the delay; my internet connection has been acting screwy in the past few days. WesleyDodds 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Is it me, or are people missing the point here? I just brought something up for use as a reference, then it gets rather strange. WesleyDodds 03:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you've noticed, but I've started revising the plot synopsis on your Revision page, because that seems like the most basic and straightforward thing to tackle. My main goal with that is to turn it into a more logical plot synopsis from the reader's perspective (that is, the reveleations about Veidt should not be introduced in the second paragraph; rather, near the end, like they are in the story itself). Also, how do you feel about the use of the character's names in the plot synopsis? The article prefers the character's real names, but Dr. Manhattan really does not go by that and Rorschach's is in a sense irrelevant in this context. WesleyDodds 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric, could you check the hobbit article again. I'm trying to removie useless information and make the article more organized, but i don't want to over do it. could you edit it please. -- Cman7792 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Insults? What insults?? I still haven't the foggiest idea what you are speaking of. Like I said, I just don't spel good. And I have nothing against Cuntullain. I think he's a real swell guy. Sorry, but I can't help it that I'm a bad speler. But I promise to work on it though. Tromaintern 05:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to merge the Lincoln biopic now: it'll probably start production after Crystal Skull. He's probably storyboarded the whole film. If it is delayed, I would merge it to Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln. Interstellar could be merged to Kip Thorne or Spielberg's own article, considering there is so little. Tintin is no prizes for guesses, and Trial should be merged to Spielberg, considering there is almost completely nothing on that. Alientraveller 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Chicago 7 would be right, I never actually heard of it so I wasn't thinking straight. As for Batman, I must admit I'm not a big fan of the film. I'm a big Burton fan funnily enough, but I saw it for the first time last year and merely found it ok. There are many articles that need work. Believe me, a 1989 film that would get my attention for now is Last Crusade. And back to Spielberg.

Hang on, is 1989 back next year? Indiana Jones. Batman and the Joker. Bond. Star Trek. That's cute. Alientraveller 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

bub, What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearedhallmonitor ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking me about moi contributions? Y? Fearedhallmonitor 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What does it have anything to do with the page?; Reads better the other way; should be kept clear to the reader; saying "substantially less" doesn't explain whether picture's performance ultimately good or bad for the film; too watered down; fan of original revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearedhallmonitor ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

humbly disagree; can we compromise before moi reverts? Fearedhallmonitor 02:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lemme thinky. Please can we use both? Inclusive both perspectives, as follows>

SAMPLE>>

Its box office performance was substantially less than its total budget of $29.5 million, including marketing costs, and was labeled a " theatrical flop" by the press.

Thata way the edit is not a statement of fact; rather reflects the source, the press, as origin. Good und neutral, right? Fearedhallmonitor 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith; Nail in coffin?>please don't take all'this so seriously. Moi issue>>article is unnecessarily watered down out of fear of offending others; ex. should we avoid the use of the term bankruptcy to describe failed businesses?; also several other Wikipedia pages employ box office failure terminology describing films (i.e. Grindhouse, snakes on a plane, etc.) ; do those need to be changed as well? box office bomb/|\described by this wikipedia page [6] as a neutral term for describing a picture's business; no compelling reason to change it if Wikipedia community is willing to accept it in majority of the cases. Fearedhallmonitor 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

here's an easy way to clear this up>> in addition to the picture's poor performance is the reaction by the press to the film. the press was very eager to condemn the film's box office and was extremely harsh in it's criticism of the film's box office. the news about this film was that the film did well with critics but did surprisingly poor business. whether the press was right or wrong in its reaction to the film, this is part of the films history; i.e. the press's consistent and direct criticism of the film as a box office bomb/flop/disappointment. to exclude this information from the article is to leave out important history about this picture. take for instance the Don Imus incident. in addition to making controversial remarks about blacks, the press was harsh and direct against Imus. whether they were right or wrong to do is not material>> the press's reaction against Imus is part of the history regarding this media figure>> the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide all relevant information, history und information about an event/person/place. it is best to include all relevant information and then let the reader decide for themselve. leaving out valid, well documented, vefiable information does a disservice to the reader>> Slither box office figures are relevant; so is the reaction by the press, which uniformally categorized this film as box office flop>> inclusive information such as this doesn't negate the article's objectivity, it simply provides additionally history about the film>> watering down this fact simply casts judgement on how the press reported on the film and leaves the reader confused about how the film was received. there is no reason to inject our point of view on the subject>> the solution is simple--> Include all veriable relevant info (A) the films fact and figures (B) how the press and public reacted to the film (i.e. the film's box office, it's perceived financial failure by the press, the press's willingness to condemn the film's box office repeatedly, the critical praise of the film) and (C) the synopsis of the film's plot und characters und actors. thanx for reassuring me this is not a personal matter. Ciao Fearedhallmonitor 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Thanks for the link - it may well be useful. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 07:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not bad work for a couple of meatpuppets, huh? Not sure how else we could improve the passage; I think scale is relevant for box office bombs. Some box office bombs hurt studios incredibly badly, some are able to recover costs from overseas. Spider-Man 3, while not at all a box office failure, actually did the worst domestically compared to the previous two and was only able to surpass the others with revenue from foreign territories. Not to mention that some films do recover costs through DVD sales -- can't think of a specific example off the top of my head, but they're out there. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As the article now stands, it's in good health. I'll keep it watchlisted for a little while longer, but I think enough precedent and consensus has been established to allow it to develop naturally from here. Good work! I am kind of sorry the sockpuppet was blocked - he was sincere about improving the article (even if his edits were misguided); he just went about it the wrong way.

Oh, and as for an example of a film which flopped but made its money back on DVD and the like: Serenity more or less flopped at the BO (this is open to interpretation), but is likely to make all its money back and more in the long term.

Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 08:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm all for this. should there be any links/sources/press article that say Slither made its money back, we should certainly include this informational history concurrantly. unfortunately, one editor is still engaging in an unprovoked revert war w/o explaination> moi solution: don't omit one verifiable contribution in favor of another. unless the contrib. contradicts, then any/all contrib should be included as long as it is veriable. the editor Cuchullian seems intent to delete veriable content regardless of community approval. hopefully he'll come around. the meanwhile, moi shall continue to include any/all veriable history important to the article, that way the reader can decide based upon all information available. thanx mate, cheers Fearedhallmonitor 08:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem; as soon as I come out of an imminent meeting. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No mocking intended; your tag seemed to sum up exactly what I was thinking; what happened. sry if you were offended mate. cheers Fearedhallmonitor 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx mate for sticking up for moi. your tops :>) Fearedhallmonitor 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Erik...just wanted to say hello again and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take a look at my complete re-tooling of the page for BMW Films' " The Hire". Let me know if you think it's worthy enough to have it's status elevated. I've been working on it for months and I think it's nearly there... TabascoMan77 11:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and for taking a quick glance. I was thinking of doing separate boxes for each movie...but I'm also thinking that, at that point, each film should have its own page. That's the tough part about working with a series of short films: do you do one page for each of the films or do you do one long page for The Hire? It's a kinduva tough call. Do you know of any other page I can reference to get an example? I'm talking about a page showcasing a series of short films. The page for Four Rooms is a good place to begin but since that's one movie and not a series of separated shorts, I need another example. TabascoMan77 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! :) I was thinking of doing a screen cap from each short film and putting that with each episode of the series. Bignole might have some ideas as well. I can hit him up for advice, too. The one thing I'm having trouble with is the citations for each paragraph. Unfortunately, when doing a chronological history, some bits are split up. Such as the DVD release portion. I have a few paragraphs talking about the DVD release (there were three notable releases in the history of the series) and I didn't really want to split that into a different part as I believe it to be an important part of the history. Thoughts? TabascoMan77 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely familiar with that method...I just didn't think to use it. It's a Monday. What do you expect? :P It's gonna take a bit more time to complete. I liked Bignole's layout for Smallville...my only problem with it is that it looks a bit plain for my tastes. I like to make things dance a bit more. Not to say he didn't do a great job with it...I just like pictures to go with my text...like a real encyclopedia. TabascoMan77 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda figured they were deleted. Like I said, even without them, the article looks fine. If I did screen caps of each short film, I think I would be safe. The Hire series feautres a different look and style for each movie so I think images might be warranted...not sure... TabascoMan77 00:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest setting up a "look and style" section...but then I feel like I would be treading into other director's articles. Come to think of it, this should work out fine. TabascoMan77 01:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Erik, it's fairly clear to me that Fearedhallmonitor is another sockpuppet of Tromaintern. Evidence for this has been brought up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ogabadaga (not by me, but another admin); he's editing the same articles to include the same information, though using the old trick of having a totally different tone. I think we're wasting time dealing with him.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

k, bad joke. i have been more than civil in my discourse w/ you and others. if junior high antics are to be resorted to, then that becomes an unfortunate path to go down. however, your buddy is in the vein of Iago is using a facsistic ploy to win an argument. even if he was right, that doesn't distract from the merits of my argument, which have been civil und logical. suspected sockpuppetry doesn't justify bad edits. expect a spirited fight from me if you choose to facsistically denigrate me just to win an edit war. the choice is yours, mate. 71.218.195.220 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

== I regret that you have decided to make this personal. I also regret that you havd decided to use that as a reason to challenge my sound, civil arguments. I guess if it's a fight you want, then it's a fight you get. cheers Fearedhallmonitor 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Tromaintern for his sockpuppetry and disruption of several articles, after seeing he was vandalizing that article you worked on. It will be a good indication Fearedhallmanitor is a sockpuppet if he doesn't edit for the next 24 hours. I think the article looks good now, minus the disruptive behavior.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 04:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

i can't speak for him. though i can speak for myself. i'm really not a sock puppet proxy. can't you do an IP check or something? yes, I know what you will say next. you'll say that i jumped onto another computer. However, unless I jumped into a plane and flew to a different state, chances are we are in completely different areas. surely using your bag of tricks und tools in your arsenal you should be able to see if our ip addresses are (at least) in the same area. also, could you not check to see if we used similar IP addresses for past edits upon checking our edit history? i do not know what else to offer other than that. i won't stand for this continued harassment, mate, simply so you can win a disturbed edit war on your end.

i concur the article looks fine. though i may reapply the box office tag at a later time if better worded to satisfy all.

i insist you please assume good faith moving forward, something you have completely failed to do with moi for childish emotional reasons. my edits have not been disruptive. that should be enough reason to assume good faith. thx for your time. Fearedhallmonitor 06:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pages such as JamieandTeddy.com are registered to the same email address (teddyhanssen@yahoo.com) as the one of the MySpace profiles, which are confirmed as part of the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield. Therefore by association they are related. Slashfilm and other site have confirmed that Slusho.jp is a part of the viral marketing campaign. There is no need to remove the links.

Where is your confirmation on 1-18-08.com? Where are the "links to articles where people involved with the production/marketing confirm that the sites are involved"? You can't have links to one site "unconfirmed" (by Wiki definition) site and disallow other sites that are obviously related and are proven legitimate after a few minutes research.

Looking at the facts that we do have (registered email addresses, links to other confirmed sites, etc), all it takes is a little common sense to put everything together. Do you really think someone faked a video for the movie using one of the actual actresses from the movie? Not likely. 1-18-08 is linked on the Wiki page because the connection is pretty obvious. Well, the same can be said for the sites I've listed. -- Captain Impulse 07:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the references [7], one of them links to an interview where J. J. Abrams confirms the 1-18-08 site. DurinsBane87 08:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Point conceded. However, the interview also indicates that other sites exist but at the time had not yet been found. I think that with those statements, plus glaring evidence to its legitimacy (the existence of Slusho in the trailer [on a character's shirt] coupled with the date of the site's inception, the actress playing Jamie Lascano in the video acting "in-character", etc), those sites should definitely be included. -- Captain Impulse 10:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But you don't seem to understand. That's Original Research. We can't allow Original Research. No matter how obvious. DurinsBane87 14:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly, but this is very loosely enforced throughout Wikipedia. Another thing; an edit was reversed concerning the ability to flip the pictures on 1-18-08.com, citing "unreliable sources". How is it unreliable if any shmoe can prove it by DOING IT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That was fast! But then again, I was surprised you hadn't started the article yourself. Yippee... Melty girl 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, excellent. I'll have to check out that resource. -- Melty girl 22:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the clarification. -- Melty girl 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, I've never done that before. I'll take a look at it this evening when I'm not at work, because I may have some stuff to add. Very cool. -- Melty girl 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should submit it. You've already made it substantial. :) -- Melty girl 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as you're a notorious stickler for the rules (and quite rightly), I was wondering if this novice editor could ask your advice on something. I've discovered that the website Chud.com now has a script review for the State of Play film, the article for which I've been "looking after". While I've no intention for now of using it to create a plot summary, it does contain some details which might be useful to the article (character names, elucidation on the premise). While I've little doubt that they have actually got their hands on the script, do you think that the site can be a considered a reliable enough source to be used in the article? Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent advice; thanks very much. I've also just noticed that the script review was posted back in April, before a rewrite was carried out by a different writer, so I think it's best that I ditch the idea of including information from it until something more reliable comes along. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

you wrote on the slither page--> "Any issue with others of the new content? I made this contribution because I believe that it's a substantial fact in regard to the box office performance, as opposed to mere throwaway reiterations of information already there." — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

no objection from moi at all. you did a wonderful job. i plan to support your version of the article. the new content is the perfect compromise. thank you for your hard work. Fearedhallmonitor 05:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not the movie vs. film thing again. BTW, your response was great as usual, but I'm sort of hesitant to get back into this debate for the nth time. Keep in mind, this debate has been going of for years and I'm just sick of it. :) — Viriditas | Talk 13:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you not see the facts in front of you, the image taken from a cellphone in Japan. Trust me, it's not a photoshop work (nothing is ripped or filtered, so why can't I put it on the Cloverfield page?)

Image:Windowslivewritermonstorpics-ddeecl.jpg‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolifix - Zaretser ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On 28 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hippie Hippie Shake (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! -- Melty girl 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we unmerge the Wolverine article? It's a few months until filming, crew are being hired and Australia is the confirmed shooting location. Also, would you consider this a reliable source? Alientraveller 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, it'd be redundant to unmerge and remerge. I'm really looking forward to seeing more of the X-Men world on film. Especially since what Gavin Hood had to say about the film. I hope he doesn't drop out like Matt Vaughan did and production gets delayed. But I think it's good that for this film, the filmmakers are focusing on just making the film and then announcing a release date. Alientraveller 16:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I loved the bits in X2 and X3 where Xavier and Beast talk to the presidents, and I felt Senator Kelly was quite sympathetic in the end, though Stryker was just a nasty piece of work. Truth be told, Magneto is the riskier prospect, but if done well, it could be the best of the series. Well, I want to be pleasantly surprised, I'm still unsure how dark they can go, though X2 really pushed it (Wolverine being all covered in blood). Alientraveller 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, they pushed back filming by a month, so we'll keep waiting. Alientraveller 09:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What'd you expect? You're a genius! Apart from being complimentary though, I guess it's just weather: December is summer in Australia, so I guess that month must be like August for them. Alientraveller 19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The September 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I've nominated Cillian Murphy for FAC, but there just don't seem to be that many reviewers around right now. So on the chance that you have the time and inclination to review it against WP:FACR, I thought I'd ask you to take a look. If you can, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cillian Murphy‎. Thanks! -- Melty girl 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I think it will still be up this weekend, but we'll see! -- Melty girl 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do get a chance to look at the article, you may want to look at the previous revision as well. A new reviewer is making unnecessary and confusing copyedits to the article, insisting that it is badly in need of copyediting, and I'm not sure what's going to end up happening. This is strange to me, given the fact that the article is a thoroughly reviewed A-class article, and all previous FA reviewers did not think it needed the extensive copyediting this reviewer somehow thinks it does. Anyway, if you do get the chance, please look at both versions, and I welcome whatever your comments will be! Thanks, Melty girl 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Specifically, please check out this last stable revision in addition to the more recent versions. This is the version that most FA reviewers saw, with some refinements thanks to those reviewers. Your take on new edits versus this last stable revision is most welcome. I will work through the recent edits today or tomorrow to try and retrieve some of the abandoned prose that I feel is superior and/or more accurate. Also, we're now undergoing debate about citations in the lead, a most confusing issue! Thanks in advance for any contribution you can make. -- Melty girl 18:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article's current form is once again stable, in case you have any time left for reviewing. I would love to get your opinion. Cheers, Melty girl 04:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your request will get the ball moving. Further, once the RfCU is done (and if positive), we can further pursue it by asking a couple admisn where to take such a request. ThuranX 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Was the CFQ article the only one he liked? We won't find an online copy, because their archives only go back as far as 1995. There may be a PDF version on the web somewhere, but something tells me that this is going to be a library source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was telling Paul last night when he dumped a mess load of information from the Halloween DVD onto my sandbox talk page. I've got two group projects, a 12 page paper (not that bad, but I have to do some research) and another big assignment--and that's just for the next two weeks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're on fire with those sources. Alientraveller 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Took the words right from my fingers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he seemed to be the only one having issue with it. The rest of us appreciate your hard work, even more so when you go and find multiple sources for him. Anyways, off to work now (i.e. no more Wiki till I return).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads-up. To be honest, it's something I've been mulling over myself these last couple of weeks, even as I've been adding new content to the article. It wasn't until after I'd spent some considerable time on it that I read the notability guidelines for films and realised it shouldn't even exist yet, strictly-speaking. But it's quite amazing how much your suggestion chimed with what I eventually concluded: as there is plenty of verifiable information out there concerning the film, and as they're now so close to the intended start of production, I decided to ignore all rules and let the article stand until such time as it becomes clear filming will be delayed. However, I'm also quite, quite sure that WP:OWN is influencing me at least a little, so if you or someone else thinks it should go, I'll be happy to implement a merge. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And sometimes very long-winded and wordy. I was typing my reason for merge when I decided to look at the page and it looked like Wiki's front page "In the news" section. It was like, "August 13: Gillian Anderson says she's in the movie" -- "August 13, 8 pm: Anderson says she isn't in the movie".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that news. This movie is going down the crapper faster than my work's toilets, and they have those industrial ones that are like jet engine fast. LOL, sorry for the toilet humor. I still think the movie is going to suck because you won't be able to introduce backgrounds for all the characters, so no one will care about them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday the 13th's prod was removed. Shall we AfD or do a merge proposal?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You know about this one: Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins?? Or this entire page: Near future in film??  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Get prepared to add a remake page for Child's Play, as I just read an interview where the producer of the franchise said they were going to remake the original.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure our's would be that long as well, if we collected every single insult. I prefer the onces that stand out. ErikBigNolepedia and Verifibullys will be forever imprinted into my brain. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not want the cast to be shown?. It's info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieguru2006 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This remark "(Revert unnecessary amateur attempt to dig up what needs to be buried; we don't link to torrents and Youtube feeds and other items that aren't directly available online)" seemed to be directed at me, except that you didn't actually revert *my* edit, you just moved it to a different place in the paragraph. I think if you were responding to me you would have gone to the talk page as I requested. Still, I couldn't see that you were responding to anyone else. If it was directed towards me I would ask you to be a little more civil and respectful in the future. I have been here at least as long, if not longer than you and while you may not agree with my edits they are not uncritical nor made without due consideration - probably one reason I do not have as many contributions as you despite being here since 2002. Contrawise, if you really believed that I *was* an amateur your response was equally impolite since it is your duty to be welcoming to new people. Also, your justification made no sense since you cannot link to something not directly available online. Take care. Saudade7 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I get it now having looked at this page. You are friends with Alientraveller - the *one* person who has a problem with that link. Well then you will *both* have to come up with a *real* reason for censoring the information. Saudade7 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And I will say that I took your comments as harsh mostly *because* you did not discuss your (attempted) edit *on* the talk page as I requested in my edit summary. I had given my justifications on that talk page, but you seemed not to want to participate in the discussion and decided, on your own, to revert "the amateur edit". On that talk page, Alientraveller was the only person who was against the cached version, citing "Courtesy" (as I remember I might be wrong) as the reason not to link it. I don't think that courtesy is a good enough reason. Also, I think that, short of torture, there is no wrong way to access information, cached or not. Thus, any available source of reliable information that is in some way available on the internet is open game as far as I am concerned. But given Alientraveller's strong feelings about courtesy towards the Edmond Sun, and given your friendship, and given the immediacy of your action despite your "vacation" I admit I did assume bad faith and I am sorry for that. I do however think of his/her theory of "courtesy" as a kind of censorship though and really do await a sound reason that cached links cannot be used. How is a page on the wayback machine ideologically different from a cached page? Saudade7 00:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as for school and the wiki, my recent intense rash of edits is the result of my needing to finishing a grant proposal for my dissertation in the next few days, so of course I am absolutely writer's blocked except for being able to express my sentiments about Indiana Jones films or the importance of Star Wars minor characters pages or bicycle rentals in the city of Paris, or the mayor of Paris, or Íngrid Betancourt‎, etc. Also, I find that I can write long argumentative responses to people like you defending things like cached pages. Saudade7 01:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I'd think you were my ex-boyfriend except that you are a much better writer than he was and I think that he *did* like Dragon Ball Z. When we were undergraduates he wrote his senior thesis in rhetoric on "Fight Club" with a whole lot of Habermasian readings and Chomsky-esque anarchist theory thrown in. He always had genuinely brilliant ideas but reading his papers was like reading a refrigerator repair manual. Oh! I don't mean that you remind me of him in that way, only that it has been awhile since someone used Fight Club and Dragon Ball Z in the same line of thought.

But yes, I know what you mean. As I even say on the Afd argument page about Star Wars minor characters, "As an inclusionist here and a historian in real life, I am always disturbed by the mania to get rid of information anywhere. Personally, as a grown-up, I don't give a damn about Jedi Knights, but having stumbled upon this page I gave my opinion and a reason for "keep" which is what is demanded here." Saudade7 01:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See there is a problem when I am even proofreading and correcting this note I am leaving you. Plus it is almost 4 in the morning here! I should go to bed! Saudade7 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are one of two editors who repeatedly remove an important reference from an article, despite Wikipedia guidelines to the contrary. Leave the reference in the article. -- Scjessey 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not making good faith edits, Erik. Clearly you are trying to shape the article to fit a personal point of view. It makes no sense to exclude the reference, and the fact that the content is unavailable is irrelevant. -- Scjessey 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you could pop down to the talk page? I'm really unsure of how reliable the LA Times piece is when most of what it reports has been debunked. Alientraveller 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yes. I was very surprised when I saw the 19%, especially as I'd just read the Variety review, which isn't too hard on the film. Ah well, file alongside Eragon (16%) I guess. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'll stick to Rings, Narnia and Potter then. Alientraveller 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know next to nothing of His Dark Materials, and I'll see it if the reviews are really good. I must say, Eva looks positively angelic flying around...

I cannot wait for Prince Caspian. I loved LWW so much, I think it's beautiful, moving and just gorgeous. I was so happy Lewis' book got a treatment as loving as Tolkien's. I'm definitely excited for each Narnia adaptation; Dawn Treader and Last Battle are my favourites. I really do want Middle-earth to continue on screen though: they should just let Pete direct or produce those prequels already. It's not like Ian McKellen is getting any younger ( or is he?).

In a world where Potter returns every eighteen months, and where Narnia was planned for an annual May release, I still feel saddened Jim Carrey and Brad Silberling never got their act together for another Lemony Snicket film. Sure, the film was slightly tonally different (I think of the books as very tragic, with lots of humour, while the film was a black comedy) but it is a shame the series never got off the ground. Well, I'm just happy they adapted three out of thirteen. Alientraveller 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're a madman; I positively hated the first Narnia film (I disagreed with its politics - looonng story). Golden Compass, however, looks great, though time will tell whether the director of the American Pie films can make the step up to the next directing level. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Snicket is a good film, positively sumptuous in its production design, and somehow the children hold their own against Jim Carrey. Best performance from baby twins, ever. With Narnia, I'm going to miss the Beavers and Tumnus.

Sequels are a funny thing in Hollywood, The Hobbit is proof of that. I found this article on why there was never another Roger Rabbit. Halo is dead: I guess there'll never be a decent video game film. Still, I'm glad Transformers 2 has the green light, I feared it becoming another Hulk: I don't want a reboot/requel/another unique adaptation. Alientraveller 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I added a link in The Hobbit. Seems okay really, the whole NL-PJ bust-up seems more relevant there than to a seventy-year old book. Alientraveller 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The moment the studio marketing wonks changed the title from the familiar title (that could have drawn in fans of the books as well as create merchandising opportunities), I knew the movie was doomed. The Seeker sounds like some quasi- middle America spiritual enlightenment story by way of white bread philosophy. The only the film could have been worse is if Schumacher had directed it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Erik. Hope your doing well and I'm happy to hear your in school! I'm hoping to start school myself here soon. Your one of the few people to me on here at Wikipedia, I do appreciate that and I haven't forgotten it. Remember, education above all else. I'd like to teach at MIT someday. Ciao. 72.49.203.96 07:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Can I ask you in a non hostile way, how you know so much about movies that are not out? Are you in film school? Do you work in the biz? Just wondering Frater210 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He's from 4 months in the future. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

The reason why These are the damned includes categories is that it is the US title of the British film The Damned (1963 film). By including the categories it will appear under "T", while The Damned (1963 film) appears under "D".

Wiki policy does state that "adding categories to a redirect page allows legitimate alternative titles or names to be found in category lists". This is specified at: [8]. I will therefore restore the categories.

Cheers.-- Marktreut 07:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I started a section on a Comics Project Improvement drive on the Notice Board talkpage and one possibility was Kingdom Come but I've been told you have this in hand and if so that means we can focus on other articles. ( Emperor 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

That's great thanks - should prove very useful. I suspect all the information you have would make it a perfect candidate for improving. ( Emperor 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Nifty. Hopefully with a bit more input we can come up with 8 or 9 articles to focus our attention on and then people can pitch in sources and whatever they have to hand and then we can work on working them in. I'll let you know when we have things moving along. ( Emperor 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

I am glad you got some relief from your hassles. I found out that a user set up a sock to use as an attack account simply to report me for 3RR twice. I took a look at the edit history for the account and discovered I was the only fellow on their hit parade, so I filed a checkuser, wondering if it was one of the charming young ducklings I've had the unhappy opportunity to argue with (I had two, maybe three possibles, and you know at least one of them - only someone with a real mad-on and enough inexperience with the rules to fool admins they didn't know they were wrong). Apparently, the person's account has been reinstated, as they claimed mea culpa about the rules of sock-puppetry. I would very much like to know the real account of this editor, because they are claiming to have made a mistake and yet, they are still hiding behind the sock. I am not sure how to proceed, but I am thinking I am going to find out the primary account, and am willing to move up the food chain until I find out. I have a right to know who is using Wikipedia to attack sepcifically me. Or am I completely wrong? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Order of events:

1 I initiated a checkuser search after the second 3RR was filed by user Heavy Brother, as the account had no other purpose but be used to attack me specifically, as indicated by his account history.

2 Comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise (you might recall him as the admin who was so very polite at the image removal fiasco this summer) erroneously states that the matter is resolved, and that the report was misfiled anyway. FutPerf is also notable for having acted on the first 3RR complaint filed by Heavy Brother, which resulted in a 24-hour block for me.

3 Declination to pursue by user Deskana, without explanation.

4 Checkuser request archived less than a day later.

I just discovered that this was all closed out while I was mostly away for the weekend. After looking at Heavy Brother's Talk Page today (an account I thought indef blocked), I sent a message to the admins weighing in on the matter: John254 and Philippe. I didn't involve FutPerf (not exactluy a neutral party where I am concerned, having essentially de-pantsed him in the Summer's image discussion) bc he had acted upon Heavy Brother's first 3RR report and blocked me. By chiming in, he's pretty much already shown his stripe. I am willing to wait until i hear back from the two admins, but if the end result isn't about me learning Heavy Brother's main account name, I am prepared to work my way up the food chain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I agree that the blog is irrelevant. I included it only to show public sentiment. I will search for broader sources. The Catholic League press release is certainly necessary however. Without the release the reader is left lacking information as to why the boycott was called in the first place. I could rewrite it in my own words and reference the release, but I thought it far more succinct to instead provide a limited quote of the release and let it speak for itself.

I know you weren't particularly opposed to including a well-written section in the article about the proposed boycott of Golden Compass, but the limited coverage you link to in the Google News archive shows that it is still a marginal issue. As such, I strongly believe that a whole section on the subject is not warranted; one line with a link to their website seems enough to me until such time as the issue receives more widespread coverage. It is also worth noting that the Catholic League, while vocal, are a pretty marginal group in the scheme of things, and while I'm not suggesting they're ignored altogether, care should be taken not to give undue prominence to their statements, both now and in the future. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I spent a considerable portion of last night reading up on the Catholic League, not out of any desire to discredit them or anything, but more to judge how much prominence statements from them concerning the film should receive. The Wikipedia article on the group has some interesting tidbits, and following external links from there leads me to strongly believe they are at best a marginal group, not representative of Catholics at large, and their output is largely the work of one man. I'm reminded of a similar furore a couple of years ago, when a Christian group in the UK made a lot of noise concerning the Jerry Springer opera, which received widespread coverage. Turned out it was all largely the work of one guy and his secretary. The Catholic League appears to operate in a similar manner, being mostly the work of a Mr Donahue. What concerns me is that this story will receive a lot of press coverage closer to the film's release, feeding on itself simply due to journalists' being too lazy/stupid to check on this group's prominence for themselves. Oh, and have a coffee; none of this 'tea' business will get you to full wakefulness! Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While I understand what you wrote to me ( :Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Cloverfield. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)) I feel compelled to point out that the article states fact, where there are no facts. It seems to know information that no one else does. If that is the undisputed plot summary, I concede that I was wrong to edit it.

However, as there have been no plot details released to any official media, I feel that an article in a public domain that purports to have the facts needs either it's official sources (I've checked out the sources - none of them official), or an open-ended plot summary. Maybe even nothing written there at all, as no real facts are known.

As for the formal tone - the wording was grammatically correct, and the same style as you would find in any science text book where not a lot is known about that particular part or subject.

If you have any further issues with my edit, please feel free to discuss them with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbie3000 ( talk • contribs) 12:13, October 10, 2007

Hey Erik. I notice you have worked on this article regularly. There was a broken reference ('Cite error 8') for a sentence about a film being made in Toronto in the 'Film adaptation' section, so I took it out. The ref name was 'thestar.' My guess is that you still have this source for this reference somewhere. According to the history, you originally added the sentence on 8 July. EdJohnston 08:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I still have a problem with the plot summary. It is an interpretation of the original quote from that source:

(" Cloverfield,"... revolves around a monster attack in New York as told from the point of view of a small group of people)

The premise in the Wikipedia section is an interpretation of the above quote, as there is no indication of them "struggling" to survive.

Also, I fail to see how one single source in the media knows for definite that that is what the film entails, when nothing has been released. This should be written in to the premise, surely? Otherwise it is misleading, and completely at odds with what an encyclopeadia should be. Many people use these such sites as a true reference. If omissions such as these are allowed on to the site, then how can anyone be sure of the validity of the information contained in any of the pages?

I am eagerly awaiting your reply. -- Sebbie3000 09:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll revise the text under critical receptions later in the day. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Spider-Man 3 is something I can get done quicker, given all those cites you provided on the talk page. I'll be getting the DVD too, so we can consolidate references. I'll probably rewrite Batman Begins' filming section and write about the special effects. I wish I had the DVD now: I lended it to my uncle, and we don't see each other often. Still, VFX World has an excellent feature on the film. In addition, I may restructure release from reception, given we have a real lack of box office information. Alientraveller 19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I did see that book, but considering my local library hasn't got it, I won't be using it (apart from LOTR, I never actually bought a book about the making of a film). I finished picking up interesting things from all the stuff you found on the effects, so I'll just wait until I buy the DVD. Alientraveller 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Erik, that Gothic Oedipus essay is making my head hurt! Should I just summarise that essay as I would the plot of a film? Alientraveller 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree he shouldn't have removed the CSD. However, due to his edits it no longer qualified for "no context". I switched it back to afd, since it now has some theoretical claim to notability. Horrorshowj 23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you fix up the hobbit page one more time. -- Cman7792 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

He didn't just remove them, he speedily deleted them on the spot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC criterion #8 is a pain. Not to worry. I am concerned about the lack of images on Wikipedia, but this policy is being enforced from the top-down and there isn't much we can do except try to find images that meet policy guidelines. In my own experience, (and YMMV) Alkivar seems to have done a lot of good work, so I wouldn't hold it against him personally. — Viriditas | Talk 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Erik, I just saw that they sent in ImageRemovalBot on Fight Club. That sucks. Let it go for now; we'll get through this and get them back up in no time. You have a better shot at including the images in a section about critical commentary per the fair use guidelines. I can easily do this for CoM, but it may take some time to set everything up. — Viriditas | Talk 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The image in CoM is easily replaced, but I think addressing the larger issue - that led to the image deletion - is of more import right now. If the admin was having a low-blood sugar day, or his inner child was crying or whatever, that will get cleared up in short order. that the admin was able to speedily delete the images and remove them from the article without discussion should be of greater concern. Perhaps Alkivar needs de-sys-opping, but perhaps of more importance is the need to address the mechanics of what made that maneuver possible. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When no attempt is even made to justify an image - which you addressed at the project - its removal is a foregone conclusion. When people take the time to put together good rationales that make sense (and I had looked at them in the past, btw), then perhaps a bit of discussion is in fact called for, I don't care what a person's past behavior is; if theyy aren't playing well with others, they need to take a break before getting shown the door. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That administrator's rashness did make you buckle up though and select some really great images. Every cloud has its silver lining... Alientraveller 08:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue those images at American Gangster and Sunshine are fine being the subject is unique to the article. It's not like LOTR, where each character has an article. Alientraveller 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Costume design for Gangster? How authentic it all looks? Still, admins are just users like us: only they have police powers of smacking up vandals. They can get blocked too for naughtiness. I think like there's this mentality of copyrighted images being wrong to be on Wikipedia. Still, I guess it work take a lot of thinking to find the right image, sorta like how Ratatouille selected an image for the plot section. And yes, I've seen it, it's superb, even if I think Pixar made it too much with an adult audience in mind. For a film about a rat, there was a lot of social commentary on conformity in society. Alientraveller 14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Erik, if you are still concerned over Alkivar's actions, you can file a complaint here. — Viriditas | Talk 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am kinda concerned that the connecting of the characters' abilities from Heroes to the list of comic book superpowers is OR by synthesis. I posted my concern here. What are your thoughts on the subject? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Erik...

Thought I would let you know that the article I re-wrote (The Hire) got a "B-rating"! :)

Very cool!

Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions on it!

TabascoMan77 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that perhaps it would be valuable to WP Films if there were an organized subgroup devoted to maintaining and keeping a watch over future film articles. Whether or not it would be considered a task force or a department, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that you'd be a natural candidate to help conceive of such a group. It would also allow you to formally integrate your user-space lists into the project for the benefit of all. What are your thoughts on the matter and who else might be worth consulting on it? (Bignole? I forget if he does future films too or not.) Girolamo Savonarola 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an idea. I'm sure it's something that should be run by WikiProject Films, if you want it to be a true "taskforce". As I showed Erik, there is Near future in film, where we have a list of just about all the film articles that have been created for films not even in production.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically it would be keeping a watchful eye on Future class, your above linked article (and several others), the cats for upcoming films, 2008 (and 2009, 2010, et al) films, and anything tagged by the upcoming film and upcoming fiction tags atop the articles. I would imagine that after an initial scrubbing, it would be fairly low-maintenance - more of a matter of just checking for new additions. The group could also formally incorporate Erik's research lists (and whatever else might exist that I'm not yet aware of), and be responsible for keeping track of release dates for all articles within their purview so as to be able to turnover Future-class films to the appropriate regular assessment class upon their release. In practice I can't see it entailing much work once it's up and running, and I'd be happy to help get the ball rolling. Girolamo Savonarola 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

copied from my talk page Just so you know, I've seen your proposal about a task force to monitor future films, and I think that would be a good idea. I'm just trying to figure out what the best implementation would be -- I think that the majority of franchise films are pretty well-covered. The links that you see at User:Erik/Future articles are all on my watchlist, so I've been able to step in a dozen times and merge/redirect the content to the appropriate place. One problem, though, would be that not all editors create the film articles within naming conventions, so they can get away from us for a short period of time, where said editors may become too emotionally invested in it to follow the guideline. I was wondering, though, wouldn't a list be enormous? Besides franchise film articles, there's a lot of smaller films which are harder to address. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(xpost) Most of the above-mentioned things can be tracked through pages like Whatlinkshere and Relatedchanges for the categories, classes, and templates. So I don't think it would be as difficult as you think. Probably the hardest thing would just be doing the first scrub through. Then the project could assemble a sortable table worklist, which would allow for sporadic manual checks as need be, too. After that, I would assume it to be a matter of light work every few days. As for the editors, I think that having an organized group handle this might make things like AfD easier on them - perhaps there could be some standard talk page templates for alerting them to the WP:NF guidelines and explaining why their articles are being AfD'd. Keeping it formal and standard should make for less individual contention. Girolamo Savonarola 14:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you were responding as I typed my above comment! The reason why I hoard headlines the way I do is that I personally do not want to invest my time putting together content for a film that may not exist. That's why the headlines are on my subpages instead of being fleshed out at the source materials' articles. Not to mention to watch the content, I'd feel the need to keep the source materials' articles on my watchlist. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Smaller films would be harder, but couldn't they be merged to the director, writer, or some other article that would better represent the information? (pardon any delay in my future responses...I'm off to class for the moment).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Harder and easier - since these are often original material that can't be merged elsewhere, it also makes verifiable information about the film in depth fairly scant too. Girolamo Savonarola 14:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For both of you, this is a tool that can be used to track accurately if a film has entered production or not. Definitely would use this over IMDb's so-called status attribute, which I've noticed has been belated oftentimes. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good to add that to the arsenal. :) IMDb is probably pointless to even bother with, since it needs time to process user-submissions, and has been agreed not to be a reliable source by the project. Girolamo Savonarola 15:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just throwing this out there, as I thought about it as I walked back from class, but we could turn that "Near future in film" page into a "Films in development" page for films that don't have a nice home like a film series page to go to. That's just a half-hearted thought that crossed my mind. Not very feasable though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's probably okay, but perhaps best left as a project page outside the main namespace. Also, the more I think about this whole thing, the more it seems to me best organized as a project department instead of a task force. (Due to the shifting scope of specific articles and lack of assessment need due to the Future class. And technically its scope applies across the project to all articles within the criteria, regardless of article content.) Girolamo Savonarola 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching. I think that some editors come in and first look at their favorite articles, and then go from there. I think they miss the part on sources though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need my patronising you, but that's some excellent work you've done over at User:Erik/FFW; a hell of a lot to take in, but I'll do what I can to help keep an eye on them. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 07:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is

Allow me to introduce... WP:FUTFILM. I have not announced this yet, so as to give you time to tinker and whatnot for at least a few days, and get it into whatever shape you think it needs. As you can also see at the bottom, I've linked to your userspace lists. You may want to consider moving these to the WikiProject space as a subpage of the Future films department, so as to keep things centralized and "open". Enjoy! Girolamo Savonarola 05:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing the Tagruato link and calling it original research. The sites link to each other. Granted, it could be reworded, but it shouldn't be removed completely. -- General Holtarna 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I can see why Actor as Role may only be appropriate if additional info is present. If no additional information is present, I've been bolding the role, I don't bold the actor. I must have seen some film articles do it before, because I wouldn't have thought to bold roles on my own. I'll unbold the roles on the articles I've edited and remove the bold formatting on any simple cast lists in film articles I view. Thanks again for notifying me. -- Pixelface 03:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't actually know those templates existed! What I was assuming was that he was trying to add what he thought was relevant info and got pissed that "some noob" was removing his edits. So I tried to keep it amicable. Thanks for the head's up on the templates tho.

Peace,

  ViperBlade  ^Talk!! 09:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the MPAA rating from the article Bee Movie. I don't think it's biased to include the American rating for a film produced in America. Nothing is stopping other editors from adding ratings given to the film in other countries. Placing the MPAA rating in its own section titled Rating may have been biased, but I don't think including " PG" in the article is biased. There is a template that editors can include in film articles to show how a film has been rated in various countries, {{ Infobox movie certificates}}, as seen at Hot Fuzz and other articles. I've added that template to Bee Movie. If you think multiple ratings would qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information, they could be limited to ratings given in predominantly English-speaking countries ( Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States) since this is the English-language Wikipedia. I would not consider it biased if the German-language Wikipedia included the rating given in Germany to a film produced in Germany. I also would not consider it biased if the English-language Wikipedia included the rating given in Germany to a film produced in Germany. -- Pixelface 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of listing them, because we usually have no idea what the reasoning for those ratings are. In the US, we usually get a bit of info like "extreme violence" or "sexuality", but everything is different in other countries. Also, we have no idea which scenes put the rating over a lower one. There's usually no way to find encyclopedic information about what scenes were the cause of a film being rated "R" when it could have passed as "PG-13"...or a film that was "PG-13" that probably should have been rated "R". It's indiscriminate, and I've sene a couple FA articles use that box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning behind film certifications can be found in many places. Official sites, film critics, etc. Sites like Screen it! describe potentially objectionable content in great detail. And I am not aware of any policy that says a source must provide a reason behind a statement. You hypothetically suggest that some PG-13 films should have been rated R, but Wikipedia users are not a reliable source. It's your word against a ratings board (such as the MPAA), and your opinion does not determine the age limit at theaters. Limiting ratings to those given in predominately English-speaking countries is not indiscriminate — it's discriminate. I think a film's rating is valid information. Just recently, Screen Gems marketing chief Mark Weinstock said the R rating of The Heartbreak Kid could have contributed to it's poor opening weekend. [9] I don't see how they are indiscriminate. Even if it was indiscriminate, WP:NOT#INFO says "consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." If you don't want to list film certifications, you don't have to. -- Pixelface 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason behind MPAA ratings can usually be found at mpaa.org. I cannot find a specific URL for individual movies at mpaa.org, but a site like Yahoo! Movies typically repeats the info [10]. -- Pixelface 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So the runtime and release date of a movie is "encyclopedic", but a rating that determines whether a theater refuses minors and can ultimately affect box office grosses is not? In film articles on Wikipedia, alot of information typically comes from the Internet Movie Database. It's a common URL in the External links section, there is a place for it in the Infobox, etc. As far as I know, the Internet Movie Database is only considered unreliable in the case of user ratings. Film certifications are verifiable, a URL surrounded by simple <ref></ref> tags will show up as brackets and a number. The {{ cite web}} template also has room for a quote if you think the ratings need further description. The Internet Movie Database is not the only source for ratings. If you could show me another encyclopedia that includes an entry for Live Free or Die Hard, I think it would help give some insight on what other encyclopedias do or don't do. -- Pixelface 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You redirected Addicted here to it's possible new name Possession .However the producers ,Yari film group have not at this stage renamed it and they still list it as Addicted on their web site [11] and the website SMGFAN , who only post news about SMG projects when it has been offically confirmed , also have had no offical note of a change of title yet.

I tried to change it back to Addicted but my knowledge of redirects isn't sufficient to do that . Garda40 15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the wikipedia page started by me for the G.I. Joe (film)‎ was removed. Why did you specifically decide to challenge my contribution(s)? You will notice that Upcoming films‎, list not only 2009 films but films in the year 2010, these are clearly not yet in production either, yet they have pages dedicated to them. You should do a system wide edit, if you have such a conviction to adhere to wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egoing ( talk • contribs) 21:51, October 19, 2007

Regarding the article Mortal Kombat: Devastation, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "It was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it has never been to AFD, only speedied. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle ( talk) 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me thank you and congratulate you on the worklist. I apologize for not having done so sooner; I was distracted when I first saw it, and merely forgot to mention it on later occasions online.

I've been ruminating over the NF guideline for a while, and I was wondering what your thoughts are regarding the seventh Harry Potter film. From what's currently on the page, it seems that it could easily be merged into Harry Potter film series with nothing lost. However, there will be the inevitable gnashing of Potterfan teeth, regardless. And it does seem unlikely that this film won't happen - although of course anything from death of major cast to studio financial problems could happen, however improbable. On the other hand, we have the guideline set up, we've already applied it to other highly anticipated Hollywood films, and applying it consistently will make it less likely for editors to fingerpoint "that's not fair". Whereas the opposite may weaken the guideline's viability. It seems to me that it made sense for us to turn a blind eye to articles which were written before the guideline but were expected to shoot very shortly, but it's been several months now, and this film isn't going to gear up for at least a year or two.

Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola 03:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you hit the nail on the head when I read it. I mean, we kind of know the film will come out, but there is always some possibility that it won't. But, to be fair, we should really make everyone follow the rules and not play favorites with some. I mean, 20 years ago, if they mentioned a Friday the 13th movie, you were probably sure that it was going to come out. But, eventually it stopped. Obviously, with HP, there is a set number...but right now I'd say there probably isn't enough info to support a separate article. God forbid we make them crunch those "Cast from books, cast not appearing" tables down. lol. Be prepared, if you propose a merge to have about 200 HP fans saying "oppose".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To be blunt, is a merge proposal needed? The guideline is unambiguous about this. And no information is being lost - it'll just redirect to the section of the film series article. Girolamo Savonarola 04:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a bold automatic merge/redirect? If so, then the proposall will happen, because I'd be willing to be there will be someone that reverts the redirect. That's the problem with the more popular topics, they create devoted fans who will fight to the death to keep what they like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume the discussion is centralized here. If we are bold in merging Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), we should make the effort as clean and straightforward as possible. This may require some reformatting of Harry Potter film series so the content can fit. We also need to make clear that the film article will be restored when the film enters production and that it is strictly the placement of content in adherence to WP:NF. Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV seem to be the most closely related projects to HP7, so they may be worth mentioning in our merge. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What sort of reformatting did you have in mind? (PS - took care of Sin City 2 just now.) Girolamo Savonarola 03:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For instance, combining Production and Cast. The primary three actors in the film are all from the same citation, so it can be written as such: "Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson will reprise their roles as Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger, respectively.^[1]" I'm just concerned about resistance to the guideline -- look at the AfD. Editors will argue that it's absolutely certain that the film will be made and that merging it would be pointless. We need to ensure a smooth transition and be prepared for whatever backlash may take place. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 03:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that the AfD was particularly ill-timed, happening right in the middle of the last book's release schedule. Which makes for no surprise, as I would assume that the HP WikiProject and the high traffic at the book page which linked there left it as a high-profile AfD in the middle of high spirits inclined to protect its status. While I'm sure that it's still considerably viewed, I tend to think that it wouldn't be as overwhelming a response. This is why I think that just doing the move is the easiest - after all of the resistance I saw (in retrospect) on the X-Files 2 page, when all was said and done, no one seemed to be bothered once the redirect was made and the content was clearly demonstrated to have survived. I understand your caution, but we're not proposing deletion - just merge/redirect. With the weight of WP:NF and no content loss, it's difficult to argue - cogently - against it (in my eyes); which is not to say that there won't be comments - I'd be suprised if there weren't - but that there will be nothing substantive lost and thus to howl about. Girolamo Savonarola 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I got a kick out of just reading the WikiProject alone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I generally just hit "dismiss" and leave it be. Hey, could you look at Friday the 13th (franchise)#Literature for me, and see what you think of the images there. Stupid cover art always throws me, it's not like trying to justify a screencapture or something.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How's it now? I was going by the image MOS, which says that you shouldn't specify size. In the case of vertical images, you put "upright" in there. It also doesn't help that I have a huge paragraph of info in the caption, I'm sure. I noted in the summary that it should probably be trimmed a bit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know with cover art. How much and what kind of "critical commentary" is necessary. Right now, Paul and I were discussing adding them--which I obviously went ahead and did--because with no images there that was one huge section of just text. But, with the image that was there before, of the Jason vs. Leatherface comic and the F13 novel, it just seems repetitious to the Jason Voorhees article, which utilizes the same image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take part, or at least monitor, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/AMThu, 18 Dec 2008 06:15:11 +00002008-12-18T06:15:11+00:000615vUTC 39#Critical commentary. I've posed a request to get WP:FU to actually explain to editors what "critical commentary" actually means, and maybe some brief examples to help people struggling with finding the right commentary for the image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

They are taking if very literal. I think they believe that if you put a quote on your user page from a modern age business scholar--something that may have been their personal motto--that you are violating copyrights, because it's in print somewhere and thus it's copyrighted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I mean, he totally didn't sound like some upset fanboy when he wrote that. *rolls eyes*. As I told Paul, it's sad to think that a group of fanboys can guard a page so much that they actually damage it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Anonymous has reverted for a third time at Citizen Kane, so you may want to keep a look out over there, or any of the other articles he is persistently battling the guidelines on--alone I might add.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Heard the news of Rupert Evans playing Superman?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Movies.com reports.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If the reports of them having their own universe are true, that will be the best thing about the movie. We don't need it corrupting multiple franchises.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Speak of the Devil and all that. That's someone's way of telling me to go do the merge. Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted this edit because I'm not sure your reasoning in the edit summary makes sense. The films have been in production for months and the first will be released on DVD Nov. 27th of this year. Aside from being straight to DVD rather than a theatrical release it's pretty much the definition of a future film. Star dust 8212 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is your favorite Futurama character? Who is your favorite Transformers character in all series? Who is your favorite actor?( TougHHead 01:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Hey, thanks again for helping out with the Cillian Murphy FAC. I really appreciate that you made the time to do it. -- Melty girl 03:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in disbelief it failed myself. It was sooo much work over the last month, and I feel like with 8 supports and 3 opposes, with one commenter about to support and one opposer about to flip, it was pretty cruel to fail it. I can't decide if it's best to renominate now, while it's fresh in people's minds and the process could perhaps just continue, or if it's all the time it will take either now or later. Very frustrating. -- Melty girl 14:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Crossed my fingers that the process will go more smoothly and quickly this time, and renominated -- letting you know, as requested. Would love to have your support again. Thanks, Melty girl 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. -- Melty girl 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've de-prodded Crood Awakening and redirected. With "future films" I tend to err on the side of caution: While you're entirely correct that the current article doesn't need to exist, there's very little harm in a redirect. Note that it also means that no-one will (probably) re-create the article. - CygnetSaIad 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha! It took me half an hour of searching earlier in order to find a way of removing the donations box, when all I could have done was have a look at your monobook.css file. Cheers for the other pointers too. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit: If you don't already use it, I've also found Twinkle to be an invaluable time-saver for quick reverts and issuing warnings. The code is added to your monobook.js file, and can be found here (doesn't work with Internet Explorer at present). Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 12:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the wiki links to edward norton in the incredible hulk article. This is insane, he's the only one without his name bracked in the cast section and it looks weird and unencyclopedic. So either take the wiki links off the other cast memebers in that part of the article or else leave it alone. annoynmous 18:53, 23 october 2007 (UTC)

The newest ref you added to the article ("Gosling and Clooney drop projects") requires registration to the LA Times. Do you happen to have an alternate link? Thanks, María ( críticame) 19:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That does the trick, thanks! I'll update it. María ( críticame) 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll remember that for future use. Enjoy the library job -- I worked as a library student assistant for four years as an undergrad and it has seemingly stuck with me. :) María ( críticame) 20:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Publishers Weekly: [12] WesleyDodds 07:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why these can't be nominated for a speedy delete instead of having to wait the five days. Well, actually I can; the criteria for speedy deletion doesn't seem to have an appropriate section for this kind of thing. Perhaps #G1, which mentions hoaxes. I'm willing to tag the aforementioned articles with it instead of the prod to see what happens. What do you think? Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged a couple. The others are either subject to AfD's or have already reached the five-day limit. Let's see what happens. Hopefully I won't get slapped down by an admin for improper use of #G1 - it seems justified in these cases. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 13:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem; I'm leaving work shortly, but I should find time to do some later tonight. Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Snagged another for your consideration - Torso (2007 film). Girolamo Savonarola 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'll hold my prodding finger off the trigger for now, then. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 22:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Invaluable advice, as always. Thanks, Liquidfinale ^{( Ţ) ( Ç) ( Ŵ)} 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a stated policy that you have to follow only a suggestion as Bignole admitted. The cast section should be highlighted and to leave it unlinked makes it look unencyclopedic. This is being anal on an extremely absurd level. There are several articles where the director is linked and in both the cast and director sections. Yes, If someones a director and writer you don't need to link both of them, but you should link to them for the cast. This is not a policy where the article will look bad if we don't do it so why are you being so anal about something that's only a suggestion and not a rule. annoynmous 16:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made a compromise on the incredible hulk article. You can't accuse me violating any policy now.

Further it is not a policy just a suggestion and you are interpreting it in the most extreme way possible. The no overlink policy is so every single word in th article doesn't get linked. If you look at just about evry single article with someone whos both an actor and a directoe in the film you will see they are linked. The reaseon is because it looks professional an encyclopedic.

There is nothing in the overlink guidlines that deals specifically with movies. You are interpreting the policy to suit your own personal ends. This isn't official policy so stop hiding behind it. annoynmous 10:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, especially given that a major role had to be recast right before shooting started. I had done that primarily because almost all year, while the film was being cast, people (usually the usual anons) kept changing it to 2008 films even as it became less likely that it would make 2007, and our justification for the reverts was that IMdB was still saying 2007.

Perhaps we should have a category, "Films with an undetermined release date", for movies that are in production (i.e., PP) or postproduction but have not had a release date set yet. Maybe it could even be added automatically if nothing is entered into the date field in the infobox.

In the meantime, I'll adapt your edit summary into a comment above the cats to deter future such edits. Daniel Case 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. I created The Devil Wears Prada only several months after shooting had wrapped and a release date had been set ... at that point I felt the available information on the film was outgrowing the section for the film in the novel article and should be spun off. That's worked quite well (I still need to split off the production history as a separate article per consensus I got on the film project talk page ... putting the article together was so intense I still want to work on some other things on my list before I get back to it).

This one was started way back when Peter Jackson bought the rights and it looked like it would actually be made, before he'd even started shooting King Kong, before he'd even started the script. I, personally, would have waited but other editors had other ideas. Daniel Case 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have now unprotected this page as per your request. Regards, Hús ö nd 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations are fine, but what I reverted didn't have any.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erik. I could use your opinion. I've completely revamped the Hulk article [13], stripping out excessive plot summary in the character history for creator/creative team commentary and outsider analysis from scientific and religious (Jewish) viewpoints. I stripped out the 'personalities of the hulk', instead using them in the course ofthe character histories. I really need feedback. Tenebrae and Doczilla havfe both reviewed already, but a third set of eyes would be truly, and deeply, appreciated. I'm going to try to solicit more feedback before I post the link on the Hulk talk, or jsut BOLDly put it up... ThuranX 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

gratitude all around. good luck with the project. ThuranX 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip regarding her Talk page. I made the appropriate changes. Thank you, Swisspass 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't want to be an admin? — Wknight94 ( talk) 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was recently spurred to hunt for new admins. Honestly I've been looking around mostly at random for names and then scanning their contribs, etc. When I randomly pulled yours up and looked at your contribs and experience, I was a little surprised you weren't already one! I saw the box on your userpage but decided to pester you anyway.  :) You seem to have been quite active for some time and do a lot of AFD work and featured article work and just general good contributions to the encyclopedia. I'll leave you alone and not bring it up again - but only after I offer the one piece of advice I was given. You only have to do as much admin work as you want. There are plenty of admins here that do almost nothing but encyclopedia writing and there's nothing wrong with that. Whatever you can contribute to reducing the admin backlog is appreciated, no matter how little. And there are quite a few admin tasks that can be undertaken with almost no threat of altercation (deleting images that have been moved to commons and the like). And so ends my sales shpiel.  :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Erik, my frustration is not against you personally. it's against the absurdity of this situation and why you care so much if or if not something is linked.

There is nothing in the overlink policy that specifically mentions movie sections so you have to admit your interpreting the policy in an extreme way.

Second, every single movie article with an actor and director has both the director and actor linked. Yes, if the director is linked you don't need to link the writer as well, but you always link the actor because it looks professional. So either every single wikpedia article with an actor and director is wrong or else you guys are going on your own personal whims.

I wasn't trying to be mean with the suggestion of personal bias, but what other conclusion am I supposed to draw. I believe that this is more abut you getting your way on the article. I know that sounds harsh, but if it isn't true than give me one good reason why Edward Norton shouldn't be linked in this section without hiding behind wikipedia policy.

I've voiced complaints in the past about the image policy, but I can at least understand the reasoning behind it as it could be a potential copyright violation. In what way does Edward Norton's name being linked harm the article. The overlink policy is so every word in the article isn't linked, but this is an extreme interpretation.

I made a change in the interest of compromise, but you reverted it. Basically when you come down to it, although I know you don't want to admit it, were basically arguing about one anothers personal taste.

Again, I don't mean to be insulting as I have great respect for you as an editor, but I think you are being a little uptight about the rules.

However, sense I really don't want to argue about this anymore heres a another compromise. If you agree to leave the CITIZEN KANE and GARDEN STATE articles alone, I'll except your version of THE INCREDIBLE HULK article. annoynmous 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you were right in regards to the policy. In my frustration I didn't look at the Movie section template you linked too. I only saw the overlink link which doesn't mention specifically movie sections.

I would like to state that my original reason for linking Nortons name was an innocent one. I saw his name unlinked and thought "man that looks bad" and it seemed to me that others would think the same.

I think this is a case of you being to big a stickler for the rules, but I acknowledge that this is the official template of how to link thes sections.

I would like to state that I think the policy is wrong and stupid and should be changed, but I really don't feel like arguing about it anymore.

I would just like to state once again that every single article with someone who's a director and writer in addition to being an actor that the actor section is always linked, so it seems to me that most people at wikipedia don't take this particular guideline seriously.

I would like to state once again that I meant no disrespect and I hope we can still have a cordial relationshp after this.

In conclusion I would like to offer two compromise options. One is that we leave the writer part unlinked and link the actorr part. There's nothing in the polcy that says the first mention of article has to be one that is linked.

The other comppromise offer is that you get the incredible hulk article the way you want it in exchange for you leaving alone the Citizen Kane and Garden State articles.

I'm trying to be decent here so please tell me on my talk page which compromise you like. annoynmous 21:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message on my page Erik, that's up to you. There is also the general MOS for linking that mentions overlinking and when to start the links.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you, Bignole, Liquid and so on, I didn't have to do too much. Sorry about jumping the gun on X-Men Origins. Funny title ay? Alientraveller 16:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently created my own page for Transformers 2 so I could summarise the main information on the article and also have an organic version ready when shooting starts. This strike is pretty interesting to me, in terms of long term impact too. I just hope this strike means the computer generated actors will have a bigger part in TF2. Alientraveller 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

With Spielberg on board, the sequel will have no trouble running from a boulder-like deadline. The whole strike is over writers and actors wanting more of the media pie, with the whole promotion of movies changing with the Internet.

Yeah, Downfall was good, I haven't seen Lives of Others, but I adored Pan's Labyrinth. Never heard of Jericho, but good for you. Too many TV series really on the serial format though: I like Doctor Who and Smallville because of the stand alone-yet-connected style, and I'm a cartoon addict. I really look forward to seeing the new Futurama. Alientraveller 17:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed your prod and made it into a redirect to the main Kung Fu Hustle page that way if somone searches for it they can find the latest news not just a red link. Whispe ring 17:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

maybe a heads up wopuld have been nice, bub. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, check out the new edit, complete with some refs. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you, Alien as well, weigh your thoughts on the current discussion at Talk: Friday the 13th (franchise) about the use of the video game cover that a couple editors want to include.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from you on the compromise offer I made above. Let me restate, the suggestion is that you can have the incredible hulk article the way you want it if you agree to let me have the Citizen Kane and Garden State articles the way I want them.

Please respond back because I got an editor named Regimund who keeps reverting my Citizen Kane edits and I've been making them on the pretext that I'd be getting an answer from you. annoynmous 02:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The October 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 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed that Wildroot (or whatever his/her name is) has been creating articles for all those canceled Batman projects?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The weird thing is, all that information was already on the film series page. He seems to have created it simply so he can post those unreliable sources that contain the scripts. Do you think we should fight it?

Yeah, I saw you put up the break banner. I had a good portion of my projects finished a couple weeks ago, so I have about another week or so before I have to start cracking down. Hope everything's going smoothly over there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)