Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:35, 5 February 2014

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.

Texas Chain Saw FAC

Hey Erik, it's been a long time. I was thinking about making a major push for FA-status on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in time for its 40th anniversary in October. Any advice? Regards, --Tærkast (Discuss) 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the heads-up at the WikiProject Film talk page about the proposed move. I agree with you that "chain saw," two words, is correct as per the onscreen title, copyright registration, etc. ... and that's how Merriam Webster spells it! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@TaerkastUA: I reviewed Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive6, and it looks pretty close. I would suggest contacting editors who commented on the FAC page but did not support the article for whatever reason. Maybe contact the admin who closed it as "not promoted" to find out why and to determine what was needed to get it promoted. My own concern is that not all possible sources have been reviewed. For example, I just plugged the title into Google Scholar and found this which was not referenced in the article. I know that there are sources that are hard to get to, but it's not a reason to shrug them off. It's probably why I haven't pursued any Featured Articles. I'm not that happy with Fight Club because it reflects an early and not-comprehensive style, and I am hoping to rewrite it in better context looking at all the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. It just seems a shame for me to abandon this project now, it'd be my sort of magnum opus of sorts, getting it to FA status. So yeah, I'll take a look and see what I can do. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"One of my personal mantras is to focus on content"

Haha. By focus on content, you mean raise this about me on someone else's talkpage? Well done. And for the record, I have "behave(d) politely, calmly and reasonably" in this and every case. Now remind me who's been edit-waring on No Other Woman (1933 film)? Does that deserve to be ignored blindly over AGF? The correct answer is no, BTW. Lugnuts 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: You are one of the regulars at WT:FILM. Your attitude toward others, especially in disagreements, has been abrasive. BMK is not without fault, but for the most part, he falls outside the community. I make it a goal to focus on content, but that does not mean I am supposed to keep quiet when other editors, especially regulars, are not going to be routinely welcoming. You make good contributions, but my concern is that editors (experienced and novice) outside the community will be put off from participating. I don't want it to be the norm to denigrate others even if they seem deserving. The rest of the Internet suffers from that. I know that you did not edit war at No Other Woman, and I've commented on that doing by others. However, WT:FILM is the main forum for editors to talk about film on Misplaced Pages, and I think we can set an example in being collaborative. I think by large, we regulars are quick in coming to a consensus on various matters, but I also think that we can be more welcoming. I'm fine with moving on from the now-collapsed discussion, but I'm going to periodically remind everyone about these behavioral policies if there's animosity. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Your attitude toward others, especially in disagreements, has been abrasive." You mean just like a proper discussion in real life, that can get a bit heated? Hold the frontpage! Outside of edit wars by other users and vandalism by IPs, I think you'll find I'm very helpful, polite and calm. How many bad IP edits does it take for someone to stop assuming good faith? 1? 10? 1,000? Fool me once, etc. Lugnuts 08:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course discussions can get heated, but we have to behave politely, calmly and reasonably even then. WP:CIVIL#Avoiding incivility says:

• "Just because we're online and unpaid doesn't mean we can behave badly to each other... there's pretty much nowhere where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into fist-fights, shouting matches, hair-pulling or name-calling. The same applies here, too."
• "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them."
• "No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to 'grow up' or include any wording along the lines of 'if this were kindergarten' in your messages."

I know that you can be very helpful, polite and calm. You post your thoughts at reasonable discussions and notify others about ongoing things for their interest. But you've said that it's different and appropriate in heated discussions, and that's where I am disagreeing with you. It reminds me of other editors like Ace Class Shadow, ThuranX, Collectonian. I don't find Misplaced Pages the place to behave "normally". We have to strive for the model set down in these behavioral policies. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Film

Erik, hello. My apologies for bothering you, but I just started to contribute on Misplaced Pages in general, and today stumbled on the WikiProject Film. I joined, because I tend to focus on the film pages, but if you don't mind, could use some direction on how to get started, or where help is needed. Thanks in advance. (btw, noticed on your user page that you wrote the article for Fight Club - coincidently, I went to school with Jim Uhls, and still remain friendly with him)

Onel5969 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Hello, not a problem to message me. :) That's pretty cool that you went to school with Jim Uhls! I would say to work on articles about topics that interest you. Fight Club is a favorite film, which was why I devoted a lot of time to the article. Beyond that, I work on films that interest me, and I tend to gravitate toward articles about upcoming films. These tend to get a lot of page views, so I like to put together information and know that a lot of readers will benefit from that. WikiProject Film has guidelines at MOS:FILM that you could read if you have some time. Are there any articles of films that you like, that look like they are pretty bare-bones? I'm happy to help make suggestions on what you can do. Erik (talk | contrib) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: Thanks for getting back so quickly... I've already made contributions on a dozen or so pages. I have a pretty eclectic taste, although I'll probably make more contributions on older, rather than newer films (especially films of the 40's and 50's). I did some work on They Were Expendable, which Beyond My Ken helped look over, which was very helpful (that was before I learned about the Edit Summary). I'll look through the films I enjoy, and start to go work on pages that interest me. My question regarding the film project, was is there list similar to that for the copy editors, which shows where effort is needed? Also, if you come across something which you think needs doing, don't hesitate to point me in that direction. (also, that was a pretty good class of folks we had at UCLA, in addition to Jim, we had Shane Black, Ed Solomon, Tim Robbins, Mariska Hargitay, just to name a few). I look forward to any input/direction you might give me. Onel5969 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Check out Template:WPFILM Announcements. The sub-heading has a few useful links. "Articles needing attention" could be of interest to you. Beware that "Cleanup listing" is unfortunately out of date. "Requests" is a list of red links, and film articles could be created from these if they meet the notability guidelines. That's awesome about Shane Black -- Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of my favorites as well. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the direction. I started out on Bonnie & Clyde, off the "articles needing attention". If you have a moment, I'd love to hear your criticism on what I've done (on both the article and the talk page), so that I can know if I'm on the right track, or what adjustments I need to make. Onel5969 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: Hi Erik... it's me again. I just attempted to edit the article Bed and Sofa. I pulled it off the list. I saw it was a "start" level article, and I've attempted to upgrade it. Could you please take a look at it and let me know what you think. Under the criteria, I think I fulfilled the requirements to get it up to at least level B. Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Looks like a nice expansion! I'm swamped today, so I will have to take a look later this week. (I want to say tonight, but I may just want to unwind.) Nudge me if I haven't taken a look in a week's time. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Erik:. Cool. Thanks for that. Glad you won't get to it right away... am making some slight style changes to conform to the MOS, as well as adding sections for the same reason. Onel5969 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The East (film)

I saw that you were a primary contributor to this article, and thought I'd inform that the film has been mislabelled as American for quite some time. I've changed it significantly to reflect the fact that it is actually a British film. Feel free to look over my changes. Also, what's up? Corvoe (speak to me) 17:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Corvoe, thanks for letting me know. Nationality in the lead section's opening sentence can be a muddled issue. I am not sure if this is a distinctly British film. The primary studio is Fox Searchlight Pictures (as reflected here), and this by The Guardian says "rest of the world" for the country field. I assume you find it British because of the involvement of Scott Free Productions? It may be that it is not worthwhile to claim that it is American or British. My preferred wording in such cases is to just call it "English-language", and we can revise the lead section to mention the Americanness of Fox Searchlight Pictures and the Britishness of Scott Free. This would be in line with MOS:FILM#Lead section. If you're still not sure, we can start a discussion on the talk page. I'm in no rush to define it either way.

Otherwise, I'm doing well! Just saw Her over the weekend and was quite blown away. I suspect it will be my favorite of the "best" films of the awards season. Hope your trip went well and that it was a good family gathering. Let me know what you would like to do about the Trost coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I saw Her last week, and I definitely agree so far. I've yet to see 12 Years a Slave, Philomena, Nebraska, Dallas Buyers Club, or Captain Phillips, but I'm seeing the latter this Wednesday. Wolf of Wall Street is definitely in second for me. American Hustle was good but not great. I can honestly say I think Gravity is wildly overhyped, because it's beautifully and incredibly shot and edited, but it's weak in the writing department. What all have you seen? Corvoe (speak to me) 18:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've only seen 12 Years a Slave and Gravity of the bunch. 12 Years a Slave is extremely well-done. I had seen McQueen's previous films (Hunger and Shame), so I was looking forward to that one. I sort of agree with the consensus that it is not a film for repeated viewings, though I will probably see it again when it comes out on Redbox. I thought Gravity was spectacular, but it does make me think of Avatar's run in being a visual spectacle (though with better acting by Bullock and a better story). I'm especially interested in seeing Dallas Buyers Club, as I've had a chance to see McConaughey in Bernie and even Killer Joe. I'm curious to see the rest, of course. Kind of intrigued by The Wolf of Wall Street, especially after I read this at The New Yorker, which responded to the controversy surrounding the film. Captain Phillips, I'm curious to see how a whole film is made, since the previews seemed to tell the whole story anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Who the fuck is running the Film Project,, Erik?

Are people like Lugnut and Clarityfiend and Ron Sinden the best the project has to offer these days? Have the really good editors been driven off because nobody stops these assholes from running rampant and stifling any creativity and improvements. Jsut what the fuck is going on there? BMK (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The film project isn't "run" by anyone. This is Misplaced Pages, it doesn't work that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My apology...

...for my incivlity on your talk page. BMK (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If there is anything you feel we can collaborate on, let me know. I'd be happy to work with you. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Working on a new project, help would be greatly appreciated

I've been working on an article for the 2011 film The FP, directed by Brandon Trost (who you helped me with prior) and Jason Trost. I'm probably going to use several of the sources you sent to me, but if you have anything else (or even better, just want to help me write the article), that'd be fantastic. If not, totally fine, but I figured I'd extend the invitation. Thanks! Also, I saw Captain Phillips, and it was fantastic. Pleasantly surprised, because I agreed that it seemed like it'd be hard to make a movie out of a plot that seemed advertised, but they did it. Barkhad Abdi is a name to look out for, I'm telling you. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe: Happy to help! I found a few references already and will post them soon on the talk page of that sub-page. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's in the mainspace now. What do you think? Corvoe (speak to me) 03:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe: Looks like a great new article! I have some feedback to give but not till tonight (hopefully). Erik (talk | contrib) 16:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Chlotrudis

Hi Erik. You mentioned at a WP:FILM discussion that you, too, might feel the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film isn't notable. Would you mind popping at at Talk:Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film‎? Another editor who's been harassing me at WP:CSC, who wants every single award and nomination by anybody to be in all lists, is now following me around to individual articles, not wanting to me to question the notability of any of these award mills. You and I might disagree on certain specifics, but I respect your overall view and abilities as an editor and hope you might bring your reasoned view here. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I just read the discussion at WT:SAL. Regarding Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, I have to say that this is very significant coverage. It looks like The Boston Phoenix has some more than passing coverage as well. I don't think it would be successfully deleted at an AfD discussion. Like I've mentioned before, I would be interested in a way to group awards, and if Chlotrudis is to stick around, it seems like it would belong in one for independent films, along with Spirit Awards, Gotham Awards, etc. Despite the animosity at the WT:SAL discussion, I have to agree that it is hard to pin down what criteria to use to exclude an award, if the award-giver is considered notable per Misplaced Pages's standards. Erik (talk | contrib) 23:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do appreciate your taking a look at the SAL RfC. If nothing else I think you'll agree than an obsessive eccentric short-circuited any serious discussion. The cat-on-a-stick article still makes this group sound like a local Boston film club that a Boston alternative newspaper supports, and I wouldn't call it notable by Misplaced Pages standards, but two respectful editors can disagree politely and collegially.

What do you think of some of the categories I suggested at theprevious WP:FILM discussion? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Film articles needing attention to supporting materials