Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:24, 24 December 2009

Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Erik's Archives

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Addition to Sunshine, reliable source?

Per a bit of discussion, a possible influence on the film was pointed out, but the only source presented is http://thefanzine.com/articles/books/316/the_last_warlock-_a_brief_history_of_clark_ashton_smith_and_the_golden_age_of_weird_fiction/6, and I'm not sure if it passes WP:RS. I think it does, but thought I'd ask someone with more experience. Geoff B (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the About page, it seems like a fairly reliable source. If there is intent to nominate Sunshine as a Featured Article, though, it could use additional backing from other sources. Erik (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Righto, thanks Erik. Geoff B (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also avoid calling it an influence but instead note the similarity. Also, keep mention of the similarity brief because judging from Google searches, this is a minor observation. Erik (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Executive producers

Erik (and Steve if you happen to see this), what is the Misplaced Pages general practice or standard regarding including or excluding executive producers in "Infobox Film"? I went by what the official site gave for the credits as the basis for Up in the Air (film). Two other editors removed the executive producers. I reverted the first edit, but am holding off on reverting the second edit pending guidance from someone much more knowledgeable than I am on this matter. Thank you in advance for your assistance and guidance, --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, we do not include executive producers; the field is reserved for producers, period. Not co-producers or assistant producers. There can be exceptions, though, if the executive producer is well-known, like Steven Spielberg with Transformers. In the case of Up in the Air, I am not sure if the executive producers are worth mentioning (there seem to be enough regular producers to mention, anyway). The movie 300 is more of a nightmare, with seven executive producers. However, for Up in the Air, if executive producers played a major role in the making of the film, they can be mentioned in the article body, like Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry with Precious. Erik (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

this reminds me of a story

Erik, we still haven't heard anyone object on the substance of my proposal to the Plot graph change. I'm sure we can both see how obvious it is that I'm proposing an improvement.

This reminds me of the time there was a little dispute over at No Country for Old Men. I had some different ideas from another editor. We hashed it out for a while without agreeing and then I did my best to include his concerns in an edit that I did. So we sort of listened to each other and took each other's good faith into account. It's not a good idea to leave yourself open to charges of bad faith, especially when you likely have the intelligence to accept a reasonable improvement.

Thanks for all your hard work! --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Inchon (film)

I'd like to retain the sources used for the Reviews subsection, but agree it might be a good idea to tweak the wording used for each. Does that sound like something you could help with? :) Thank you very much for your time and input, Cirt (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, actually maybe I'll have a go at trimming it down a bit, but let me know what you think. Cirt (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why do you want to retain the sources? It would be less repetitive to work with fewer of them and to go into more depth than saying the film is bad. Sounds like a plan. I've placed the article on my watchlist. (I don't have too many on it anymore, cutting down on my activity for the most part. Damned if I can't stay away from WP, though...) Erik (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have succeeded in trimming that particular subsection down significantly . Care to have another look? ;) Cirt (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Cast/Crew

Any comments you could add here would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Help needed regarding rewrite tag

In revision 333012628 by 92.156.50.80 (talk), the user added the {{rewrite}} template to Up in the Air (film) without providing a reason. If you see a reason that this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Misplaced Pages's quality standards, please state it in Talk:Up in the Air (film)#Justification for rewrite tag. I would appreciate it if you or someone from the American cinema task force would determine whether the {{rewrite}} is justified and to remove the tag if it is not. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Avatar

Please stop removing the British parts from the lede. Avatar is referred to as American-British because one of the production companies is British, and nationaility for films derives from the nationality of the production companies. The British release dates are relevant because WP:FilmRelease states that the date of teh first public showing should be included, along with the release dates of the production countries. Please restore the British release dates and the nationality otherwise I will have choice but to report you for edit-warring. Please take your concerns to the discussion page where these issues have already being discussed and settled upon. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

you removed "Themes and inspirations: Deleted content backed by unreliable source -- any *.blogspot.com citation is immediately dismissed)" . How about it is supported by other Misplaced Pages articles to which it had direct links?????? If some pothead adds a blogspot citation - completely unrelated to the stuff I wrote BTW, but you don't read Russian do you - so *remove* *THAT* *citation*, DON'T remove the text with well established easily verified veracity. Just DON'T!!! *****GOSH!***** WillNess (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Ideally, we shouldn't leave the material if we cannot cite it reliably. The web page from *.blogspot.com is not a reliable source. Erik (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just said to you that the blogspot sitation was NOT a source for this. Someone added it on their own, and it was completely irrelevant. So remove THAT CITATION, don't remove the text. It has links to other Misplaced Pages articles showing its veracity: just CLICK to see for yourself. WillNess (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't cite Misplaced Pages to back Misplaced Pages. Text has to be backed by a reliable source. Erik (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

How did you go from good guy to bad guy and I got the crappy post and represented as a vandal? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I just focused my clash on the content itself. :P Erik (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of this on AN/I? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker award section cleanup

Just want to call your attention to some cleanup of The Hurt Locker's award section. I've outlined what I'm thinking about doing on the talk page here, and would appreciate your thoughts and comments! There's been some contentious editing on this article in the past, and I'd like to avoid that here if at all possible.

Also, what do you think about my comment on trying to get a more consistent awards format for films? Worth talking about it at WP:FILM? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)