User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 9

Review Fires on the Plain

Could you review Fires on the Plain (film)? This is not a review for B class, I'd just like an opinion about it. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit. It would be appreciated if you could get to this quickly. Oh, and if you could give me an opinion on my new section in WP:film talk page "Saving Private Ryan - Sniper issue" that would be appreciated as well. I will ask other editors about this as well. Happy editing! Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a crack at it if you're willing to submit it for a peer review. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but other editors are reviewing it now and I don't know how to submit it anyways. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See the instructions at WP:PR - it's really rather easy, and comes with the benefit of several automated tools as well. Good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also thanks for your comment on SPR - sniper issue. I believe nobody would really notice if we replaced "sniper" with "marksmen". Regardless, I believe Swatjester's source supports that he is a sniper very little besides the use of the word. I also think that if we reach an end to this issue, we should at least take out that source. Maybe, we could do a poll? I don't know. Well, besides that, Fires on the Plain is going quite well. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

Please see the talk page. If you recall my concerns previously, I think there is something going on here that needs attention, but maybe from an admin. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

Zinta video question

Hello Girolamo! I would like to ask you something. I tried to find another source regarding Preity Zinta's early career and find out which film was the first she starred in after Kya Kehna, Soldier or Dil Se. We know that technically Kya Kehna was her very first film, and that Dil Se was her first release. As I said, in an interview I saw back in time she said that Soldier had happened before Dil Se. In this interview with BAFTA (which is a video by google, unfortunately), her very first answer describes that (in the second by the way she describes her first audition with Shekhar Kapur). We of course cannot use this video as a source (I guess so). Do you have any idea what we can do? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Video interviews are perfectly acceptable as sources, especially if they can be easily watched and verified online. If that's your source, then we have Template:Cite video - just make certain to identify the time in the video track where the information for that reference begins. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow thank you! At first I thought you were joking... Well, fine I'll add it later. BTW, youtube.com does not qualify as RS, does it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The trick is finding a stable location - YouTube is a problem because content is regularly removed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The given video has been there for almost two years now. Thanks for the help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey again. Several of your points have been addressed. Could you please have a look at the FAC? The article clearly has no chances to be promoted, but nevertheless. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you not had time? I see you were quite busy with other matters. Please have a look though before the nomination is closed. It's very important right now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 03:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Igor...what do I do?

No problem. :) Just download and unzip the Igor-0.2.0.zip file, and execute the .jar file. It gives a bit more detail in the README file. There have been some problems with running on Macs, so please let me know hoe it goes, good or bad? – ClockworkSoul 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you grabbed the source files, then. There should be two files on that page, one source, and one not. The executable one is in a green button and looks misleadingly like a header of some kind. – ClockworkSoul 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any luck? – ClockworkSoul 05:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you leave the jar in the same directory as the /resources and and /lib directories? I don't know how to check the console for error messages on a Mac, unfortunately. That would help us find the probelem. – ClockworkSoul 05:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, what version of Java do you have? – ClockworkSoul 05:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah! That's probably the problem: you'll need Java 6. You'll need to download the Java SE6 update for Mac. – ClockworkSoul 05:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What version of MacOS do you have? – ClockworkSoul 06:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate :/ I would compile with an earlier Java if I could, but I rely on a number of the newer features to do a number of things. – ClockworkSoul 06:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Igor bug number 1968422... this may fix your problem when I resolve it. – ClockworkSoul 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject films peer review of Pather Panchali

Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article is at the WikiProject Films' peer review section here. Please provide inputs. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would be happy to get around to it in the next few days. Thanks for the heads-up! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in Your Editing of "Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye"

Hello! You made an error in your editing of the article on Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye. I've seen the film and the title is not Story of the Eye -- Georges Bataille's name is part of the title. Please check the film's web site at www.armcinema25.com to confirm this. Thanks! 205.247.175.180 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I am the guy who created the original article. Mr. 205 is correct -- I saw the film when it played in New York back in 2004 and it is called "Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye." I fixed the article's title. I can understand the confusion, since I did not ID the director in the original text. And, yes, the web site for the film will confirm this. (Gee, I thought I was the only person who knew about this film!). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Argentine films

Hello Mr. Savonarola. I was wondering if you agreed with me that moving the spanish names in Category:Argentine films to the english were posssible would be the best course of action. If you agree could you help me move some of the them to the english names but as each one is done the names in the images will have to be changed accordingly so I don't get bot drills again. Let me know what you would propose because at present as they are in spanish it almost feels like they are alienated from the rest. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've begun moving the spanish article titles to english. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that per UE and NCF policy, film titles should not be translated into English unless evidence exists that the titles were translated for foreign release. Otherwise it's essentially OR to be translating the titles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk)

Thats what I always thought but I always thought you insisted that all foreign titles should be moved. Ah Ok I agree anyway, I have only moved the ones which have been released under the english title internationally. Some of them wouldn't translate that easily anyway. Thanks, if the Fritzbot gets the greenlight for the geo articles I'll be reutrning once again to do more film work over the coming months. Particularly France, Italy, Spain/Mexico and Hong Kong. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreign titles should be moved where the English title exists. Otherwise, we can't be making our own assumptions on how to translate - plenty of films have opted for English-release titles which are significantly different from the vernacular title, sometimes with the explicit intent of the filmmakers. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mania for unreferenced tag

I'm noticing that editors are using this much too frequently in film articles, e.g. Reign of Terror. I mean, what is there that needs to be referenced that the IMDb and TCM links don't cover? Is there something we can do to discourage this or someplace to bring this up for discussion?

Also, on an unrelated note, what is the guideline on IMDb and AMG links? I seem to recall reading that they shouldn't be listed in the External links section if they are already in the infobox, but User:23skidoo claims he or she has read the opposite. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the current convention is to maintain links to IMDb in both the infobox and the EL. As far as references go, only two points stick out: 1) references need to be cited for specific points within the article itself, and 2) it is generally agreed that the IMDb fails WP:RS. (AMG would be acceptable, however, since it credits its authors and doesn't accept anonymously submitted and poorly checked data.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought only IMDb trivia and biographical info were unreliable. Are you saying that the credits are also? I notified them one time about a mistake (Jack La Rue was listed as uncredited in a film, when I could see that he was with my own beady eyes), so I assumed they checked those. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is some evidence that the WGA credits are verified with the guild, but aside from that, the cast lists are created the same way as the trivia section, so there's no way to ascertain the reliability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A big name actor's credits are usually submitted to IMDB by the production company(s) handling that particular project. If an individual submits a credit, IMDB requires includsion of links to the film's website where their name is listed or inclusion a screenshot showing their name in the onscreen credits in order to verify their credit. Despite the errors that slip through (as slip through anywhere), IMDB does have strict guidelines. Being seen onscreen does not neccessarily count as a credit... as I have several "uncrediteds" on my own IMDB page... but being identified onscreen does. And yes, "anyone" can add to an actor's bio or trivia page, but in order to have the information accepted and placed on the page, IMDB requires the submitter to include third-party evidence of the information... much as does Wiki... but IMDB does not include those sources for us to see. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about your experiences, but I can tell you as far as my own go (and I do also have an IMDb page), this is not the case. I have added considerable amounts of information to it with no sourcing attached. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally [in case it's not obvious], the technical information in the IMDB is very unreliable. It's not to be trusted for aspect ratios, lens formats, film stock, footage counts, etc. jhawkinson (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not versed in film technical aspects, being in front of a camera and not behind. I suppose then that an IMDB source should be then backed up by as many other cites as possible. Yes? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Girolamo, I am envious about your getting things on so easily. My own experience has required proof upon proof. Do off-Wiki screenshots of credits for appearances work well when used as Wiki sources? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but then that would require somehow validating that the screenshot was in fact from the film. The real answer to the dilemma is simply to note that citation is only required for information which is likely to be challenged - I would think that inclusion in the credits of a film is sufficient to prevent the need for citation. Proving uncredited appearances is more difficult, obviously. The other thing to note is that as regards COI situations such as your own article, you are not in a powerless position wrt verification of the facts - for objective facts, you can easily supply the necessary documentation yourself through your website. It's only when POV material (both positive and negative) comes into play that your status as both the subject and editor of the article becomes a liability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I had been told that by many worthy editors, but have refrained from adding even the simplest fact to the article... from IMDB or even my own website. Indeed, before the artcle survived the AfD, links to my website were summerily removed by another who claimed that including even the most basic fact sourced from my own website was a violation of COI, even though they were in no way conentious. I feel like I have tiger by the tail and my grip is slipping. However, and on a different note, how can I bring my knowledge to your project? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would very closely and carefully read WP:COI and WP:AUTO, just to be perfectly clear on what the issues are and how and why editors may react. Perhaps the best option is simply to confine yourself to requesting changes via the article's talk page. As for your last question, if you want to help our project (I simply help keep the engine running), then I'd recommend going to WP:FILM, where you can formally join if you so decide, and where we have a good number of open tasks running. And of course, if you feel up to the task of bringing any of our film articles to featured status, we're always very grateful. Regards, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should have made that suggestion, as I have just discovered that the article in question is once more being deconstructed... as it was 7 months ago and as it was just last month. Knowing that it will continue, I had just posted on the article's talk page a request that the deletions be returned, quoting the specific Wiki Policy behind my reasoning, before returning here. However, the deleting editor either ignores or deletes discussion pages if he disagrees with what is said. So, if another editor agrees and returns the information, super. If not, it may be because they do not wish to cross swords with the deleting editor. Point of fact, this continued deconstruction aside, many excellent editors have had a part in improving the article over the last 6 months and they will be in for a surprise if/when they look in. I am not lobbying or forum shopping, as I was already in discussion here before these events took place. Your advice is appreciated. In the meantime, through depressed by today's deletions... I am heartened by your invitation and will visit WP:Film. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just joined Wikipedia:Film. Thank you. I am looking forward to studying the project and how I might help. Superb. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, right. The real story here is that this user registered a number of sockpuppet accounts, created a handful of fraud websites and has been waging an extensive lobbying campaign on Wikipedia to maintain Michael Q. Schmidt as a promotional tool for himself. He has written numerous blog entries, submitted his own information to IMDB using accounts with the same name as his Wikipedia sockpuppets and uploaded his resume to his own website so each of these things could be used to advertise for himself on his article. The fact that he's trying to claim it isn't a gross conflict of interest is laughable. That he's also pretending this doesn't qualify as forum shopping is also incredibly transparent since he's brought up these very same arguments under the very same pretext on the talk pages of countless other users and administrators to try to win favor for his case. I would treat his claims with great suspicion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not arbitrating a conflict here - I am merely elucidating policies and guidelines. I have no desire at the moment to get involved in whatever is going on. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry sir. I did not intend for this to follow me here. I appreciate the helpful clarification of guideline and policy. Thank you. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Award

I came to Casablanca for the waters, but the award is a nice bonus. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Medal

Thanks! :) The Wookieepedian (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! (Keep up the good work...nudge, nudge...) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unexpected awards are always fun

Thanks! Just out of curiosity, why isn't Triumph of the Will on the Core list? (I originally started editing Wikipedia because I was amazed that there were no in-depth articles on it!) Palm_Dogg (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't qualified for inclusion yet because it isn't high enough on the metalist; that being said, it is ranked well enough that I anticipate that it will join the Core list when the German task force is set up sometime in the near future. I'd definitely encourage any further work on it now, though, if I can be of any assistance. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the barnstar! I will address your comments of course. Thank you for the help. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the comments left by you will be addressed (of course it may take some time, as, you can guess, the working speed will be somewhat less now!). And bye the way, when you have time, please have a look at Pather Panchali, which is in the peer review of WikiProject Films now (as I have messaged you earlier).--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As for Armaan. Armaan was quite an arty and non-commercial film with no box office expectations. I have no problem adding it, but it is mostly known for its content and the critical success, and writing it would just make it a redundant note. It was more of a film which was expected to do well critically rather than commerically. That's common sense here, for that you'll have to know the subject.

Salaam Namaste review by NYT. We are always going according to the majority view. As you know, there will always be someone to criticise a film. In this case, most of the reviews (probably all of them, except NYT) were positive and even very positive. In the article we are presenting the final result, so that it can represent the general/overall reception for a film, and the information is fair and representative. The reception was as I said mostly (almost unanimously) positive, so that's what we say in the article (for that you will have to see my analysis). Also good to note that a note like "The NYT said..." belongs to the film article, not here. Here we only describe the general reception in one line, meaning, the majority view. Apart from that, I saw the NYT review and it was fairly positive, except for some very minor points.

Girolamo, how do you think is best to rewrite the graduation bit? As of now I changed it to "She initially majored in English honours, and later pursued an advanced programme in psychology. She earned a postgraduate degree in criminal psychology..."

Is there somewhere else to go? Maybe something like:

"She initially/first (or maybe it's best to remove that?) 'majored in'/'graduated with'/'earned an undergrad' in English honours, and later pursued an advanced programme in psychology. She earned a postgraduate/masters degree in crim psy..." ? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The advanced program = grad school. So "she graduated college with an English honors degree, and then started a graduate program in criminal psychology" would be a good way to go, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit

I think it would be best to treat the project in development as a piece of history rather than an actual film article, hence my suggestion to exclude the film infobox. While we have WP:NFF, we also have WP:SS. The topic has grown in its own right, and whether or not a film actually comes forward, this is a distinct movement that cannot be scooted under a section of another article. A possible compromise is some kind of Tolkien films article that would be a broader location, mentioning briefly and linking to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. WP:NFF is ultimately a guideline, the template indicating, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." For example, if Watchmen (film) for some reason did not enter active production, it would have relevance as a stand-alone historical topic. Any tweaks you have in mind? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pather Panchali review

Thanks a lot for the review. We shall work on it, and update you. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Have responded to your comments in the review. Have commented on 4 of your suggestions, please have a look. Thanks. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you help with Greek (TV show)?

An editor, Thelegendofvix keeps adding a "Name of show" section in, though many editors, myself included, belive it is unnecesary. Since there are (not that I can tell, anyways) coordinators for Wikiproject TV, and though you are a Wikiproject film editor, could you help in determining weather or not it is due weight? I'm going to ask other editors to. I'm sorry I ask so many questions, hopefully, one day I will no longer be dependant on editors like you. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are numerous editors disagreeing, then it's really an issue of consensus. I'm not familiar with WP TV's style guidelines and practices, however, so I'd feel somewhat out of my element as far as the issue itself. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Start to B-Class

I developed a first draft of the Start to B-class template, found here. Let me know how it needs to be changed/expanded so that I can develop the template and you can integrate it into the banner. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 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 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pather Panchali contd

Hi! Have responded to your second series of suggestions in the peer review. Although I know nothing about auteur theory (indeed, learned the word first while going through sources for the artilce Satyajit Ray!!), the word was used from sources cited. We in wikipedia, are not to debate on the theory, just to report that he has been called a auteur by appropriate authority (in this case, books on cinema), this was the basis for using the word. Please again have a look at the article. It is definitely improving a lot thanks to your assessment with clinical precision. Hope the article will be ready soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Modified the article per your suggestions. Thanks. Waiting for the next dose of review :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Good luck and look forward to your future contributions! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely shameful

Thank you very much for the barnstar! Its nice to know my work on Wikipedia is appreciated by some people. My editing has slowed down tremendously recently but I hope to jump back in soon. When I do, my first objective will be to try to bring Aguirre, the Wrath of God to Featured Status.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wiktlas"

Well, I liked your wiki-atlas idea anyway. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well actually I proposed a proper Atlas and a Wiki Translation project 8 months ago but like the bot was met with some opposition ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here is the link

Pretest webpage

If you have any question during pretest, please contact me.

Please finish it before 25 June. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW^talk 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

just remind you to do this test as early as possible. It won't take you too much time. Thanks a lot!! :)

JnW^talk 09:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:

evaluation questionnaire

thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)

JnW^talk 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just remind you to complete the questionnaire.

My thesis's oral defense is on next Wednesday. So please complete it as early as you can. I believe it would just take you 5 miniutes. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW^talk 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Production history of The Devil Wears Prada

OK, I'll hold off on finishing the job, but I still believe it ought to be done. I respectfully disagree with the assessment that most of this is "cruft" ... I found while researching the original article that just about everyone involved in the film has an awful lot to say that explains why many creative decisions were made in the making of the movie (as opposed to "I liked working with X because ..."). I'm open to moving some of the quotes into footnotes as I have been, but I really feel a lot of what's in there is adequately encyclopedic. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did bring it up on WT:FILM a long time ago (can't find the link right yet ... I'll get it to you eventually here it is), and the consensus was to go ahead and do it, and that it would be a good idea to have because we would eventually need more. There are plenty of films that, IMHO, could use separate articles on their convoluted production histories (Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now for starters). I have always used quotes perhaps because of my journalistic background, but also because it insulates the article better from charges (and someone in a review always makes them) that the editor is improperly synthesizing the source material or otherwise imposing a subjective bias on it (also, it makes it easier to find an archived or other version of the source when the original link goes dead). I can see your point about the lists ... they could easily be prosified.

If you would like to discuss this on WT:FILM, let's do it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I started the thread already. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There was never any comment either way on that thread. In the absence of consensus I have reverted your conversion of the article into a redirect. Look, if there were consensus against doing this I would defer. But one user, even if they are project coordinator, does not get to decide this. I do think more input than yours or mine is needed, but we don't seem to be getting it. There was a consensus for it the first time I did it.

If you really feel this article is unnecessary and that the existing production section is too long and crufty then please, make the edits you feel need to made to it yourself and I will be happy to work with you and discuss them. Either that, or leave the forked article alone until we get consensus on whether to have them or not. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this with me and do not use edit summaries. Lack of attention to it does not constitute a reason for deletion or redirectification. I have been awaiting some clearer consensus or input from you other than "please don't do this ... I am the project coordinator and I get to make all the rules." Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize again for the above remarks. It was late, I do not have air conditioning, I had returned from a long weekend of travel and I was vexed about something else that had happened on another project. Once again, I am truly sorry and have struck it through. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never invoked my coordinator status (which does not have jurisdiction outside of the project itself), and I am insulted that you are implying such. Whether or not you agree with my actions, I have acted civilly and have not accused you of acting in bad faith or treated you to ad hominem attack - reciprocation would be appreciated instead of receiving threats via edit summary.

I have already stated my reasons - divorcing the production section from the article deprives it of the most important strand of real-world context that it needs to entail, and subsequently weakens the main article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have inadvertently insulted you. But still, I don't feel that you've adequately stated a case, and I really prefer discussing to reverting.

Oh, what the hell ... I will just go and edit the section in the main article to shreds, and request the deletion of the production history article. This will come up again with another movie; don't say I didn't warn you. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply bring the matter to the style guidelines and get an across-the-board consult and decision? Seems like a better way to prepare for future issues. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The deed's done. I have decided that perhaps you were right, and indeed there's considerable fat in the main article I could cut, and have started to. I think it would be better to have this discussion when there is more serious need for it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that for the most part, film articles do not need sub-articles, but it may not be uncalled for. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy has a few sub-articles, but then again, it's a trilogy. I think that if steps were taken to ensure that production information was as compressed as possible and if the article size is rather large, it would not be a bad idea to pursue wider consensus. I think for topics like Reception, it would be ideal to keep it limited to a section (no idea if anyone felt like implementing every review ever written for a particular film). Another sub-article possibility is critical analysis... I cite my personal example (User:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club) to be a likely contender for its own article with so many sources to use. (Though I've procrastinated in writing the article...) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Evil Dead

Could you check out some of those Evil Dead film articles and tell me what work needs to be done on them to make them better respected? If you can't I understand, Thank You. --Tj999 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting with WP:MOSFILM and also looking at some of our featured articles to get a better idea of what a quality film article looks like, and how it is written. But the most important thing is mainly finding good reference material for the articles - both online, but more importantly,offline if possible. There should be several good books that have been written about the films by now, either from a more documentary aspect, a tangential one (like biographies of the main cast and crew members), or a critical perspective. Google Books, Google Scholar, and even Amazon search probably are a good way to find some of these; the JSTOR database is also worth a good trawl if you can obtain access (many libraries have accounts there). If you have a specific article that you're putting up for a review process such as peer review, A-class review, or FAC, though, do let me know. Best luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your knowledge. I will look into these offline sources. --Tj999 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking of placing Evil Dead II into the review process. Does that seem reasonable? --Tj999 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We welcome all articles. Look forward to seeing it there. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comment re: COI, and request for further input if you're able

Hi there, a couple weeks back you left a comment in reply to me on the discussion page for the upcoming Kevin Costner film Swing Vote. I had requested assistance in making factual additions to the page, and you replied to say there shouldn't be any COI problems "so long as you are performing neutral, uncontroversial edits" and " involve facts which are unlikely to be contested and are reliably sourced."

I appreciated the suggestion greatly, although I hadn't acted on it until just now. Long story short, when I created this account I sought advice from the Village Pump, and got the thumbs-up simply to make suggestions. I did not even ask for permission to make edits, because "exercise great caution" is not clearly defined, and I've seen what happens to people who end up on the wrong side of COI disputes.

Anyway, using your suggestion I've finally gotten around to starting a discussion about thison the Village Pump and would appreciate it if you might add your thoughts there. Thanks. NMS Bill (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll Bot

Hi Giro. The bot as been approved and the new geo project is undergoing setup, but if notability of settlements cannot be asserted and we can't find enough data for a seperate article we are indeed considering creating data tables in district or commune pages to save creating a truckload of permastubs. E.g like Ou Ya Dav District but with a column also for the geo globe. This way we will have a comprehensive coverage of most places but only those where there is enough info will have seperate articles created by the bot. Redirrects can be created until indeed there is enough info for articles on the lesser settlements. We will try to create as many decent starter articles as possible on towns if we have several sentences of data and take it from there. I believe this is the best solution and would recgnize most of the places in the world in either form. Eventually of course we hope for full articles on all places but initially this would indeed seem a good idea, just thought you might be interested seems as you mentioned this before. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Can't say that I can foresee too much time for this in the near future, though, so I will have to decline. Regardless of the outcome, I still think that an Atlas-like sister project would be a good idea, and if you have any future inclinations in that regard, please do let me know. (Btw, dealing with Wikimedia instead of Jimbo is almost certainly the better course of action should you pursue that.) Best, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A-class review has moved

Hello. I have moved the A-class review to a much beter page at Wikipedia:A-class film nominations. Please tell me what you think at my talk page. Thank you. Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it has several negatives, but most importantly, I think that this should have been raised at WT:FILMC first before making large-scale structural changes unannounced. While I am not going to request deletion of the page at the moment, I am going to revert the other changes for the meantime, and I would suggest that you move the proposed structure to your userspace and bring it to the coordinators for consultation. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've added it to WT:FILMC, so please leave a comment there. Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your comments

I've read what you wrote, and I understand a lot of it. But, why is it A-class review if it's to get up another class? Also, I mentioned above your comment at WT:FILMC that it's ONLY for WP:FILM articles. Anyway, if you want me to change it so that it reflects a review page, I'll do that. Tell me, If I did change it to your satisfaction, would you support the page? Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the review page to reflect what you have said. Please read the new nomination page and tell me what you think. Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any substantial changes which address any of the issues I've brought to the fore, nor any answers to the general questions as to the reasons why these changes are needed. Furthermore, I'm concerned about your intentions altogether, and would appreciate if you, as a coordinator, would not try to subvert the role of the position by bringing this matter - which is specifically within our jurisdiction and remit - to the community at large before we have concluded discussion. Lastly, I am concerned by the alacrity with which you are trying to push this through, with an emphasis on voting rather than discussing, and requesting that we do things as quickly as possible. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On Pather Panchali PR

Thanks, Giro. I will be traveling for next 1-2 weeks, so most probably won't be able to attend the article. However, I shall notify you as soon as the review comments are attended to. See you soon, regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kino Flo

Hi, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It also makes claims that are spammy if not sourced. I'll put the deleted text, with tags and cats killed here soon jimfbleak (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Companies, like bands, have to meet the notability requirement, and if they don't they are liable for CSD. However, if you believe that I have acted inappropriately, you can of course take that up elsewhere. jimfbleak (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Japanese submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Hello. I swapped the colors for nominees and rejected films per your comments at the aforementioned FLC. Also, as a member of the Italian cinema task force, could you look at my comments here? That reference is basically the only thing between that article and a FLC run, and any aid would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hello!

Would you mind lending your opinion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Disambiguation of Nothing But Trouble films? I'm asking you because your opinion on film related matters is more respected than that of anyone else in the community and I'd like to have some sort of consensus on this kind of an issue for future reference.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Task forces

Giro don't try to make me look like the bad guy. Everybody has a right to object or have concerns. You clearly didn't read Shahid's talk page as the response on the project page looks out of context. The editor has badgered at Shahid all day long and turned it into a misconduct or drama. He has a right to object, I suggested a discussion, but noted that any discussion is likely to be strictly limited at present due to the fact that many of the most active editors on Bollywood are not present. I appreciate your role as a lead coordinator and ensuring task forces run smoothly, but the problem with the Indian cinema template was exactly that cuased by the American tmeplate which as you know a detailed consensus was given to only use that in core articles, the same is being done here. I apologise if I seemed patronising but the editor in quesiton isn't aware of the history on here and how and the purpose of why they were constructed in the first place. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because another editor is not behaving up to the code of conduct here does not give you license to abase him - and in the process, yourself. I would suggest at the least re-editing your comments. If the editor is unaware of the history, link to it. If he still has objections, discuss the issues. The amount of work you have or haven't done prior to the question is not a valid defense - if anything, more experienced editors should also be more accountable (and civil) - you're supposed to be a role model for the less experienced editors. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I try to be a good role model for less expeienced editors, but its the way in which the editor at hand addressed it as a tell tale. We've worked for months on the Indian cinema project, created the lists and most of the ways of navigation in that topic including templates. Shahid tried to explain the history of it earlier. We also explained that a lengthy discussion between Bollywood editors on here wouldn't have much effect as normal on here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything on Shahid's talk page that constitutes badgering, IMHO. A little less defensiveness, perhaps? In any case, this probably is worth opening up a larger discussion on the project talk page, since it will affect all of the task forces. Do you have some links to the historical consensus decision? They would be handy. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Garion96 who was involved with the American template. P.S. how will it affetc all the task forces? Nobody is removing any templates on any other cinemas. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 01:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's a question of consistent policy, then presumably it could affect all of them, if we're talking about where the templates are and aren't appropriate. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't actually the one who proposed it or removed anything but it seems a logical step to make. Shahid equally has every right to edit in a way he deems appropriate. it really should have been sorted when the American one was. I believe the usage of the templates across other cinemas which don't have complex sub structures was approved back then and I personally would object to removing them from the other cinema articles. Remember we still have the individual sub cinema templates too which along with the director templates and the cinema of india templates was too much. Basically each of the Bollywood articles had two cinema templates which many would think too much, But it is an issue I've thought about from time to time and it does often seem too generic to have an article on Bollywood film connected to a Marathi film director or choreographers. Indian cinema is different in that is has many sub industries. Trust me I'd rather we had our veteran Indian cinema members back on wikipedia and the task force regain its activity and discussion as once occurred. I'd just rather situations weren't blown up thats all particularly with recent clearly redundant dab pages like Queen of Bollywood restored which again turned into a debate. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 01:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I've clearly shown I'm not hostile to the editor himself and actually warmly welcome him to participate and encourage activity in the task force as much as anybody. It can just get a little frustrating having to explain things to people again and again, and explain every course of editing people make, and to try to make a diverse bunch of people on here who often have conflicting views and interests and everybody happy. Thanks for notifying me if you think I stepped out of line but it wasn't intentionally unfriendly. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 02:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

I am just wondering if there was a June newsletter released. Maybe I missed it or deleted it somehow, but I don't recall that. Thank you, --Tj999 (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We usually release them at the end of the month, to recap what happened in that month. Nehrams2020 is the lead editor at the moment, if you have any further questions. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I guess I forgot about that. Haha, sorry. You should check out some of my recent edits because I think they are fairly good. They include: French Kiss (film), Halloween: H20, and Halloween: Resurrection. Resurrection went through the biggest change with the help of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. --Tj999 (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Evangelion (Live-Action) Page

Hello, I noticed your recent change to the page for the proposed Evangelion live action film and wanted to know why you did change it. I understand changes to the pages content, but there is now no way to access the page that was there now! Again, could you explain the reason for this? Thank you Ode2joy (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class

I left a message on the coordinator page about the Start to B-class template a few days back, not sure if you missed it or not. Are we planning on adopting the C-class or remaining as is. Also for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality statistics, is the importance parameter going to be removed from this with only the Core list in it? Or do we have to approach the bot that updates this to add the Core list? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been distracted a bit as of late both by offline commitments and a current slavish attention to new taskforce tagging (a long protracted mission for Japan; a much easier task - so far! - for Germany). I've already integrated the Start-to-B into the template, but we need to decide if we're going to use C-Class first, and then define our project-specific standards for it before any further work can be done in that direction. The importance parameter is definitely going to be dropped; again, after I find enough time to finish redesign work on the banner and submit it to the coordinators for advice and consent. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also been busy, focusing on GA Sweeps, and have finally finished reviewing all of the articles I want to review. I plan on submitting a few of my GAs at the A-class review to improve them and get the process started up some. I'm working on the newsletter right now and will mention the new task force. Are we planning on asking the whole project to determine if the C-class should be included or just the coordinators? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the coordinators and see where things go from there. If there isn't support, then we should bring our views to the community and then see what they think. If there is, then we should draft up standards for what that means in the context of film articles, and submit that for community comments. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I had figured, but wanted to see your thoughts on it. Hopefully we get feedback from all of the coordinators. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Miller's Crossing

When you have a moment can you take a look at this article? I am concerned with the changes made recently by Captain Crawdad, specifically the changes to the "cast" section, in which he added information that seem inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and is more appropriate to a fan site. He claims, on the talk page, that his changes are in line with WikiProject Films guidelines, but I have my doubts. I would like very much to hear your opinion. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Article assessments

This isn't just sour grapes on my part for having some of my articles assessed as Stubs, but I can't help but feel that this is unduly harsh for the likes of Life is Cool and BABO as opposed to "proper" stubs such as (to give a comparable example) Lee Dae-ro Can't Die. How exactly do these articles fall short of Start-Class requirements?

On a related note, will the Film project be adopting the new C-Class, and how will the {{Film Grading scheme}} be affected by the revised {{Grading scheme}}? (I also see that the film grading scheme does not include FL-Class.) PC78 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

All very pertinent questions! I can't recall my specific assessments of those articles, but you might want to check against the Editing Guidelines section of the project banner, which usually contains tips for what is needed to proceed from Stub to Start class, and may show deficiencies that led to my assessing them as Stubs. As for the larger question of the assessment criteria, C-Class, etc, your timing is fortuitous, as the coordinators are about to start discussing the matter, and plan to draft a proposal shortly for comment by the project at large. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry..

...about tagging Verree Teasdale and Ned Glass with the Film Project banner -- I didn't realize bios were outside the scope. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Problem solved. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I figured actors/actresses would fall naturally under Film. I'm afraid there's a few goofs that'll need fixing... TREKphiler 08:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing film lists

I've replied to your comment at this CfD; I'm not sure what makes it "complicated" (perhaps my cack-handed attempt to explain it during the early hours of the morning!), but while I don't have a problem with simply dumping them all into a single category, I do think that such a category would still need to be renamed.

On a semi related note, I have also listed a number of film list templates at TfD. Those I've listed are amongst the most unnecessary, but in general there do appear to be far more cinema templates than what we actually need. I hope you don't mind my efforts to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fires on the Plain - C-class?

I'm sure you've heard of the new class (C-class) that has been added to assesment, which is why I come to you to ask if Fires on the Plain meets C-class. I know I've been bugging many editors on this issue of its class. It is currently a Start article. I'm pretty sure it has yet to meet the criteria for B-class. I'm aiming for GA-class (not yet of course) but am fully aware that I don't have many resources to make it so. I also disagree that (according to the assesment) "it still does not provide a moderate view" (this is qouted from memory). I'm not bragging about the article, but I think it provides a good amount of info. But anyways, does it begin to meet criteria for C-class? Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer your question yet, because we have yet to decide 1) if the project will support the class, 2) what criteria will need to be met to be so assessed, but most practically 3) the project banner does not as of yet support the class, so therefore attempting to reclass it as C will result in a default "unassessed" from the template. For the meantime, I'd simply encourage that you continue to pursue the B-class. Best of luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I'm sorry that it seems I come to you and somme other editors everytime there is something new.I'll be sure to keep an eye out on weather or not we decide to support C-class. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just so you know I actually submitted it for a Peer Review recently. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay so I've added an opinion on weather or not we should support C-class. Yojimbo501 (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry (again)

I seemed to have err'd again. Is "WikiProjectBannerFilm" an old version of the "Film" template? I'll go through and check the stuff I did recently and make the change. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you got 'em all. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

{{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is a meta-template for nesting multiple project banners. What are we discussing? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, mistyped above. I was apologizing for using the "WikiProjectFilm" template instead of the "Film" template. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a redirect. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Template talk: Film archiving

Hello, Girolamo Savonarola. You have new messages at Skittleys's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.