Misplaced Pages

User talk:Erik: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:56, 16 December 2010 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 editsm Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Still serious narrative problems← Previous edit Revision as of 12:23, 17 December 2010 edit undoErik (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers100,355 edits Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Still serious narrative problems: cmNext edit →
Line 51: Line 51:


Oh, and I forgot to say months ago, "Welcome back." ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, and I forgot to say months ago, "Welcome back." ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

:Hi, Flyer22. :) I'm not ''quite'' back, though my activity is up just a little. Regarding ''Titanic'', I think DocKino has some points, even though the overall discussion is rather impolite. What he is saying is that the last two paragraphs of "Writing and inspiration" are more related to filming. There is a lot of information in that section, and it may help to reorder it. For example, there could be a "Conception" section that would basically combine the inspiration and the writing. For the last three paragraphs starting with "Cameron met with 20th Century Fox", perhaps it could be a "Development and pre-production" subsection? These changes could be a start, at least. As for the ''Mir'' item, I am okay with mentioning Sagalevich's cameo. Identifying his relationship with the ''Mir'' answers readers' question of why he's relevant without having to leave the film article. How these suggestions help. ] (] | ]) 12:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:23, 17 December 2010

User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Brute Man image

Hey Erik. I added a new fair use image to The Brute Man, and wanted to run it by you since you did the GAN review. It's the one under the MST3K section. I feel it more than qualifies for fair use because its absense would be detrimental to the understanding of readers who are not familiar with the show Mystery Science Theater 3000, and a simple description of the show (with characters watching the film) doesn't convey the understanding as well as seeing it does. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Darren Aronofsky films

GA and FA I noticed that you've been the main contributor to The Fountain and Black Swan (film) and I wanted to know if you are interested in collaborating to make the former FA-class and work on the latter for GA whenever the dust settles and it's stable. If so, please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)TCM02:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm too touch-and-go to be able to help these days, unfortunately. It would be great to see The Fountain become a Featured Article, though! On its talk page, there's a link to the references sub-page which you can use for building toward FA status. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Fountain/archive2 Thanks, Erik. Please e-mail that chapter to me (the "M" in my signature.) For what it's worth, I'm trying to get a hold of the picture book/screenplay to see if that has anything useful and if you're interested in the commentary that Aronofsky self-released, you can find it all over the place--I downloaded it when it was first released and I can get it to you if you're interested. Also, thanks for the heads-up on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Multimedia; I might just make a clip for this. Needless to say, if this ends up FA, it will mostly be due to your hard work. —Justin (koavf)TCM17:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will have to email you the PDF later. Internet connection's very slow for me (basically a big reason why I haven't contributed much in the past month). Regarding the screenplay book, I am pretty positive that it does not have anything of value for the article. I sought it out when I first read about it. It's basically the screenplay and pictures, which is why I never used it in the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Help

I would like more opinions on this AFD if you don't mind. − Jhenderson 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve the article a little bit. It's a start. ;) − Jhenderson 16:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Still serious narrative problems

Erik, would you mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? We need an uninvolved editor with good experience regarding Misplaced Pages film articles weighing in. I always respect your opinion on such topics, whether you agree with me or not.

Oh, and I forgot to say months ago, "Welcome back." Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22. :) I'm not quite back, though my activity is up just a little. Regarding Titanic, I think DocKino has some points, even though the overall discussion is rather impolite. What he is saying is that the last two paragraphs of "Writing and inspiration" are more related to filming. There is a lot of information in that section, and it may help to reorder it. For example, there could be a "Conception" section that would basically combine the inspiration and the writing. For the last three paragraphs starting with "Cameron met with 20th Century Fox", perhaps it could be a "Development and pre-production" subsection? These changes could be a start, at least. As for the Mir item, I am okay with mentioning Sagalevich's cameo. Identifying his relationship with the Mir answers readers' question of why he's relevant without having to leave the film article. How these suggestions help. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)