Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Girolamo Savonarola (talk | contribs) at 21:58, 21 August 2007 (→Star Wars articles and production info). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

• User talk:The Filmaker/Archive1
• User talk:The Filmaker/Archive2
• User talk:The Filmaker/Archive3

Re: Return of the Jedi

Hey. I've worked on some FA pushes (i.e. Final Fantasy XII). I am looking forward to working with you. I am usually interested in FA pushes. Can you help me out? I am considering some articles for my self-nomination. All Wikiprojects always stride for GAs and FAs, remember? By the way, thank you for your comments both on the Return of the Jedi article and on my talk page. They are much appreciated. :D Good luck and regards. Sjones23 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've halted the FAC on the Return of the Jedi until these issues that you explained are resolved (see Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi#FAC). Thanks. Sjones23 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would need some help in finding sources, especially for the production section. I will need some people from the League of Copyeditors for the copyediting. Thanks. Sjones23 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting on the article, placed a copyedit request at the WikiProject League of Copyeditors and added a "copyedit" tag, but is there anything else left I can do to help with this article on becoming an FA status? Thanks. Sjones23 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would be very much appreciated if you help me find a copyeditor or find reliable sources for this article. Thanks. Sjones23 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I did some considerable copyediting to ROJ last night, but I have some questions regarding your recent reversions of a few of my edits. Please see my comments near the bottom of the talk page. —beverson 20:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I also did some proofreading. Thank you for your comments earlier, both on the ROTJ article and on my talk page. I fixed a few errors that Beverson made. By the way, I have earlier placed a final proofread request at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading#Ready_for_final_proofread. I have made some editing and cleaning up as well. If I made the FA push without you, I apologize. :D All the best. Greg Jones II 23:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see my comments at the talk page as well. Thanks. Greg Jones II 00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I've made my recommendation, but I have to say that it unfortunately looks like the AfD will wind up for keep or no consensus. These processes are usually a WOFT because most editors don't know what arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I think, also, the general rule of thumb is that the longer the AfD page (not in terms of votes recommendations, but back-and-forth discussion), the less likely a consensus is reached. Also, quid pro quo, would you mind checking out Road to Perdition? I've been expanding it (still need to rewrite the Plot section and add a decent Critical reaction section), but thoughts on the structure would be appreciated. I still have citations on the talk page that I'm incorporating into the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. You basically said what I said, just (as I reflected on it when I put it back) with a little less "tone".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Made in America (The Sopranos)

In regard to your recent edits to the article, I noticed you changed the section title "Plot summary" to "Plot". The addition of "summary" was to clarify that the section is meant to summary, rather than the entirety of the plot. The shortened title is also dwarfed by the subsection that proceeds it. Just64helpin 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Made in America (the Sopranos)

You deleted a submission to the Sopranos article adding only four letters to describe your reasons for doing so, typing 'rv or', i presume you mean 'original research' - the contribution was as follows:

"Most interpretations of the ending scene take no account of the song playing in the diner as Tony first enters - "All That You Dream" - its chorus is - - "I've been down but not like this before - Can't be 'round this kind of show no more" - Given that Chase has said he will make no further comment, the significance of this is up to the viewers."

If you had bothered to cut and paste these lyrics into the web you would see that by now thousands of people are discussing this. the only section of the contribution that could be qualified as original research is the final sentence, stating that given the writers will make no comment, the viewers are left to interpret its meaning for themselves.

So why did you remove it?

Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request notification

Hi there. I'm leaving a courtesy note to let you know that I am asking the closing admin to reconsider Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth in popular culture. My arguments are laid out at User talk:Coredesat#Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request. As you opened the original AfD, I'm notifying you so that you can add your opinion, either there or later if it goes to DRV. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Godfather/Sandbox

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article The Godfather/Sandbox, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Postcard Cathy 12:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I moved an article you made to User:The Filmaker/Style guidelines for film articles. I assume it wasn't supposed to be in the main namespace eaolson 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Welcome

I was surprised you weren't already a member after all of the many improvements to GA/FA you have helped with. Anyway, here's an official welcome! --Nehrams2020 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for July has been published. August's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Misplaced Pages. Check it out!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How's it going?

I wanted to see what your up to, what articles are being pushed, and what does ROTJ need to be ready for an FAC push? Also, are we going to work on the Star Wars article to make sure it stays a featured topic? All the best! Judgesurreal777 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

About half done copyediting, no problems thus far :) Judgesurreal777 23:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Will finish copyediting tonight/tomorrow. Also, I have a important request. I have created an article, Ghostbusters (franchise) to cover all of the Ghostbusters stuff, and I have merged a ton of articles into it, so it is kind of a mess. Could you please help me with it? Copyediting, trimming junk, etc? Thanks so much... Judgesurreal777 02:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I've been a little busy trying to finish up old priorities, so I might not be able to get to those articles. — Deckiller 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

re:"Fanboy" vandal

Unfortunately, the other account wasn't blocked indefinitely, so we can't get him for block evasion. He's one revert away from 3RR, and if starts again yesterday, I'll block him anyway for gaming the system. — Deckiller 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

re:ROTJ

I know the feeling. — Deckiller 03:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He's quite...enthusiastic? . — Deckiller 03:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm a firm believer that the main editor should nominate the article. If necessary, a vote can be held for the honors. — Deckiller 03:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars articles and production info

I just wanted to say a few brief words off of the FAC. First of all, congratulations on making it this far on getting the entire series to FA status. It's quite an accomplishment, especially in the light of the high trafffic the articles must get!

My comment regarding the ROTJ FAC is mainly that there is not enough out-of-universe information there, although what is presented is done well. In comparison, the ANH article has an extensive amount of info regarding Lucas's personal travails making the film, which I think are no less worthy than the challenges faced by the crew en-masse or the technical innovations required to create the films. The problem is that the information sources (particularly the links I provided) can be rather tech-speak and don't necessarily provide the most obvious context. I'd be willing to help not only with the ROTJ article, but also with the other SW articles each in bringing a lot of this up to spec. Particularly, it's distressing to see the ANH article mention the "groundbreaking" work of ILM in the lead (quite a justifiable statement), but then fail to mention much about ILM aside from its founding and the politics. Specifically, what made it groundbreaking? I also have the Mark Cotta Vaz book, so I'll see what can be dug up. I guess my overall objections are simply that for films that are so expensive, technically intensive, and innovative if not groundbreaking, one would be hard pressed to learn this if your only encounter with Star Wars was reading the WP articles. Thanks for your time, Girolamo Savonarola 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)