User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 12

I mentioned to Nehrams2020 about making a bot request to tag film-related articles with {{Film}} (he thought it would be a god idea). Should be relatively straightforward and would save on some manual labour, but I was wondering what you think. PC78 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um didn't I propose this a while back? The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, did you? PC78 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've long said we need a FilmBot for running such tasks as a lot of edits for WP:Films requires a high number of repetitive tasks. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was really thinking of doing this as a one-off. I don't think that project tagging in itself is a job that would require a full time bot, though I don't know about the other tasks you have in mind. PC78 (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been a fan of the human touch myself, but I can certainly see some of the appeal. Why is this discussion happening here, though? Seems more apropos to either WT:FILM or WT:FILMC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why Blofeld is posting here, but I was merely looking for your input as yourself and Nehrams had discussed a "tag & assess drive" on the coordinator's page. I hardly think it's something that requires a project-wide discussion, but I can make a more formalised proposal at WT:FILMC if you wish. PC78 (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I blatantly asked you to never bring up the subject of my contributions again. What was initially a request to assist an editor (Lord knows I got a serious talking to when I create sub stubs without infoboxes back in 2006) turned into a lecture on why infoboxes are not important to articles contradicting any coordinated drive there has been to add infoboxes to film articles. Then you turn up and completely inappropriately mentions my contributions to the project with a touch of sarcasm, snub the quality of my edits and pass me off as an imdb dumper evne though I consistently help articles to GA level. Whether you claim to be acting in good faith I just find the response I continually get within WikiProject over seemingly light issues more disagreeable than it needs to be. I'm clearly wasting my time with my input in the project as whether it is imdb links or any alterations I am overidden everytime by the people who pass themsevles off as leaders of the project. I make a suggestion to use a bot for monotonous tasks which was completely ignored. Then PC78 suddenly has an inspiration to use one and suddenly it becomes a major possibility. Well you can continue to function in your elevated coordinator world and I'll continue to function within my "imdb dumping" world. This way we never have to collide or get in the way of each other. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo, that discussion was not one where it warranted such a response. It didn't need to go beyond the exchange between Blofeld and PC78, which was why I had merely reported the fact that I had communicated with the editor creating new articles and didn't get involved. Some people are just going to have tiffs, so it is a matter of other parties piping up at the right time. This was not the right time. If I may suggest, Blofeld removed his comments from a couple of discussions, but they should be restored for continuity. Girolamo, if you want to at least assuage matters, redact your comment with a placeholder. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts end there. I left one comment for that ridiculous bunch of editors and that's where I'm leaving it. You would have thought someone insulted their mothers with the level of dedication they are giving to making sure IMDb stays in the infobox (makes one wonder who is signing their paychecks). The whole things needs to go to another RfC, and with everyone that has taken part in this mess of a debate keeping 100% out of the discussion (i.e. they don't even need to respond to the opposes and supports in the RfC, because it just turns back into that childish "oh yeah, you're wrong" debate over and over again).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a basic framework for a potential tag & assess drive to begin at some point next year. I basically followed the military history's project with a few minor modifications. I'll still be working on it further in the next few weeks, but if you get a chance, feel free to start tinkering with it, unless you currently have more pressing issues. I just asked one of the coordinators of the military history project how their worklists were developed (whether it was done with a bot or not) and once I've figured out how to make the lists, I'll start doing that. Hopefully we get a lot of participation in the drive. If we finish all of the articles in this drive, we can do this every couple years to keep our project up-to-date. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were we planning on creating an improvement parameter asking for a production section (similar to our needs-infobox/needs-image)? I thought I saw a while back that we wanted to have one but I haven't seen if it has been created or not. If we do, we should get it finalized before we plan on starting this drive. Also, do you know when you'd want this drive to begin and run to? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, I think I had left the parameters to Erik, since he had proposed it, and never heard back regarding them. It is probably a good idea to implement them before T&A '09, though. I'll see about addressing this sometime in the next few days. The drive page looks excellent! I can't wait to see things start to go into action. As I seem to remember, Kirill used a bot to comb through most of the MilHist-related categories and dump the articles into a list that he later finessed with a text editor. I'm certain the coordinators at MilHist would know better, though. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Krill got back to me, saying that he used a script to create the worklists. He said he would be willing to help us develop our worklists once we are ready. I was telling Erik that we should probably start the drive after we see the responses to the questionnaire, which we would like to send out with the newsletter this month. So should we start shooting for the drive to start sometime in late January/February or are we looking toward a summer drive? Also, are we planning on having any more new task forces that are likely to be added? It will be important to work on implementing those quickly so the proper articles can be tagged in the drive. Erik believes that adding the need-production parameter will be beneficial, so we'll be adding that prior to the drive as well. I'm hoping through the questionnaire we can determine how many people are interested in taking part in the drive and that we can organize it well enough to keep people involved in the drive. I look forward to some more of your comments over the next few days as we work towards organizing this drive. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking - I am very happy to help in any way that I can, but you're in charge of the drive, so the details ultimately are up to you. It's also nice to see that you and several other coordinators are being rather proactive in organizing these special projects, since I feel the Lead position has previously been misunderstood as prime mover rather than primus inter pares. I don't know much either way about the timing, but it might be worthwhile to peruse about some of the other WikiProjects to see if there would be any other T&As going on concurrently which might be likely to conflict with ours. (Obviously those which are from projects with either small or vastly different scopes are unlikely to be a problem.) With regards to task forces, now that all of the major English-language ones have been implemented, we are back to the normal status of waiting for user demand. However, both the British and American task forces are overwhelmingly under-tagged, if that is relevant. I hope that helps; please also feel free to solicit further thoughts from the other coordinators as well. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you moved Revenge of a Kabuki Actor to An Actor's Revenge. I understand that this name is the more commonly-linked version on Wikipedia, but Revenge of a Kabuki Actor is the more commonly accepted version of the name now. This is like the Bicycle Thief-->Bicycle Thieves change that occurred a few years ago (or Remembrance of Things Past-->In Search of Lost Time, to give another example), where a work is still widely known under the name of a previous translation, though that translated title is no longer considered correct. DVDs of the film are under the title Revenge of a Kabuki Actor. It should be noted that neither title is a literal translation of the title (which would actually be Yukinojo's Revenge or something like that). So I guess my question is regarding titling standards--do we name the article after the name most people associate with the film, or the new translation? Thanks, --Granddukesfinances (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many DVDs go under the new title? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, are you located in Europe? After doing research I've realized that Revenge of a Kabuki Actor has become the standard for Region 1 (found here; on VHS and on New Yorker's prints, the film went by the An Actor's Revenge title), but that the BFI R2 release is called An Actor's Revenge (here). The R1 release is more recent (this year) than the R2 (2003). So I think the wording you changed it to is more accurate at this point. Thanks. --Granddukesfinances (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Then wouldn't it have been at least polite, not to mention civil, to have approached me about it instead of announcing it in an edit summary? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was a bold, but minor edit. Apologies and no offense intended. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the edit that bothered me, but the edit summary. I started out calling that section BAFTA Awards, and the reviewers wanted the complete name of the award, not just the acronym. I'm not always certain about reviewers... It's all good. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template you added was even better: [2] Best wishes. travb (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar enough with the multiple wiki projects. Could this AfD be listed on pages that might draw the attention of Russian or Ukranian speaking wiki editors? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for showing an interest in the proposed WikiProject. I was just wondering if you could add your name here , as before a WikiProject can be set up it is required to have a certain number of participants to show that there will be others interested and that the project won't become inactive. Many thanks, and looking forward to hopefully working with you in the future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you are interested the project is in deveopment here.

Silence equals consent would make sense if there were no discussion, period. That's not the issue - there has been copious discussion for many weeks, which foundered without a conclusion for either side. That's no consensus, not silence equals consent. All the tag does is states the obvious - that this is not a currently-discussed topic, nor has it passed. Were there a tag for no consensus, I'd gladly choose that instead. I hope this clarifies the matter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, it ill-behooves a partisan to decide that they can neutrally characterize the nature of a discussion and determine consensus or lack thereof. Silence in the face of multiple unrebutted arguments for the proposal is indeed consent. Unwillingness to compromise on one side does not mean the other side has lost, if they've proved their point. I'm a neutral party, an outsider - not an ongoing partisan - and I feel that the proposal has reached consensus, far from being rejected. arimareiji (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read Wikipedia:Silence and consensus - it is not about "unrebutted" arguments, which is contentious to describe to begin with, since many editors feel that the arguments have been rebutted or are not germane to their points, which they feel have not been rebutted. Silence equals consensus means that if something is proposed, made accessible to a large enough audience for a long enough time, and no one objects to it, then it can be considered approved by lack of dissent. It is not about how to judge arguments, nor should it ever be construed as such. The moment opposition is voiced, silence equals consensus is moot. Considering the large number of voices over the past two months - some of which you may have missed as many of them are in the recent archives - any attempt to apply S=E here is grossly invalid. Furthermore, many of the dissenting editors have voluntarily left the discussion due to Termer's behavior (their words, not mine). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You prefer the essay you just cited; I prefer the policy you linked when you asserted "Silence implies consent." I sincerely doubt either of us will convince the other of our interpretation, and so I'll leave my position at this:

Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner.

arimareiji (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which I don't disagree with - but if you're going continue to bring up the silence argument, I'm merely going to state that it's moot because you're trying to bring it where it was never intended to go: into a discussion. Claiming that the other side hasn't answered your arguments appropriately or adequately is the hallmark stance of each side in every argument - it's why they are arguments! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivially and tangentially, I wish we could apply even a fraction of the volume of hot air generated at Citing IMDB and its archives to my city's streets - the snow and ice would be gone in no time. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side thought: If in the next few days you feel like cut/pasting onto my talk page an executive summary of unique arguments for your side from recent archives, I'll scan it. It's just that I used up all of my tl;dr energy points on the talk page, and don't have enough left to open up the archives only to see even more repetitions of the same arguments. I am genuinely neutral on this - if the current status of the talk page is indeed skewed the wrong way by their absence, I'll put the rejected tag back on myself. arimareiji (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - too much heavy lifting! Regarding the tags, there's only three places a guideline can be: approved, proposed, or rejected. When discussion dies down, that's either approved or rejected - unless discussion is reopened again, which of course it can at any given time. Both sides have spoken a good deal (in fact, this new proposal itself is basically in response to and an extension of the much much much longer and more exasperating discussions at Template talk:Infobox Film and its copious archives), and few if any have changed positions or compromised. Having multiple rounds of discussion over longer periods of time is a natural part of any large or sweeping changes, and sometimes allowing the participants time to cool off and think calmly about the matter without any pressures of time or rebuttal can be a good thing; appropriate hiatuses also allow new parties to get involved in fresh rounds without feeling overwhelmed by long arguments in progress or massive discussion pages. This is natural: nothing has to be decided today. The role of the IMDb in Wikipedia is very big discussion, and it is likely to elicit a large, site-wide RfC in the near-future. However, keeping the proposed tag up creates the impression that things are still being discussed, which they are not; while the rejected tag itself indicates that rejection often comes from a lack of clear consensus, not an outright dismissal. Discussion may re-emerge or consensus may change - in either case, the matter can be freely opened again as a proposed guideline. But an entire month without anything at all from either party does not indicate an active proposal. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, which is why I formed my conclusion on the basis of what's on the current page. Wrt the RfC... they say there's no time like the present. If you think the current page is skewed against your side, then this would be the perfect time to correct that fault before it goes into RfC - and then throw it into RfC yourself. I'm not suggesting that you should or would try to bias the page; rather the opposite. I'm saying this because I don't think your side would fare well, and thus you deserve a chance to mount a defense before it happens. arimareiji (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think you massively underestimate what a hornet's nest you're stepping into.... Seriously, read the archives for this page and the infobox. Do as you will, though, as will I - but there's no score, nor is there a trial, so I'm a bit mystified by the tone of your comments. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere, to clarify: I wasn't "offering [myself] as an arbitrator," as you posit. I was offering the chance to convince someone not already on your side prior to the free-for-all you anticipate, for practice if naught else. Some people view that as handy. You apparently don't, and so I wish you well. arimareiji (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is on my talk page. It does not say half of what I think, primarily because I am far too polite. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The December 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) 03:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to this template which seem to have smoothed things over. Just a heads up in case you were going to go back to this. Regards. PC78 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to prevent ambiguation between different cinema industries. The Malayalam cinema article (just like the other cinema articles) is talking about movies made in India. Other articles of film industries within India have recently changed names to "Cinema of-" followed by the respective states. Some of those articles have already been previously named that way (Cinema of Karnataka for example). Also, "Cinema of-" names don't just apply to nations only. They can also apply to states (such as Cinema of Quebec, where Quebec is a province in Canada). Names such as Malayalam cinema or Malayalam film industry are considered colloquial names and use of them are being discouraged by Wikipedia. So Cinema of Kerala is a more appropriate title for the article. Other regional Indian film industry articles will also be given similar titles later. --இளைய நாயகன் Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Anastasia (soundtrack) and Battlestar Galactica: The Plan beyond the scope of our project? I'll admit to being a bit hazy with regard to film soundtracks, but I would have thought a TV film was OK. PC78 (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's iffy... Soundtracks are definitely out - we've already established that about a year or so ago. TV movies can depend. My general rule of thumb is that if it's closely associated with a TV series, I leave it with WP TV, whereas a standalone can be covered by WP Film, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Generally, the associated TV movie will be edited by those who already work on the TV articles and are familiar with that format - which in all likelihood is better suited, I'd hazard to guess. What are your thoughts on it? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong thoughts either way, more a case of wanting to know for future. It might be an idea to clarify some of this under the "scope" section of the project's main page, particuarly with regard to soundtracks if they're a definite no no. While I'm on the subject, what about the likes of That's How You Know and The Donnie Darko Book, which I've also tagged and am equally unsure of. PC78 (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally tend to think of the matter in terms of which project is best suited to tackle the needs of the material. In the case of the song, that's probably best left to the Music projects - oftentimes songs wind up with a life of their own well beyond the film itself. The DD book is something which I'd have to question as far as notability goes - is it a notable book independent of the film? I doubt it. A wonderful source for the article on the film, no question, but not worthy of its own article. How would you imagine the book being brought to FA status, in any case? As for franchise tie-ins, I wouldn't include them under any circumstances, because they are about the expansion of the plotline and as such don't directly have relevance to the film itself. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that all makes sense. :) PC78 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the DD book would fall into our scope, but that particular instance likely has notability issues. It is possible that some examples exist that would not have this problem. (Perhaps the Hitchcock/Truffaut book.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Was wondering on your assessment of the above article as a start class. I believe that its for sure better than that. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References are a bit sparser than one would expect, particularly in the first half. Sorry, thinking of another article... If you want to see if you can assess at B-class, then go to the Improving this article section of the project banner on the talk page and fill out the checklist parameters; if you believe in good faith that all five have been sufficiently satisfied, then it will meet the B-class requirements. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that am not familiar with this banner. With what I can see, those parameters are for articles on movies per se and not on this article which is not on any single movie, but on a genre of political movies. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the B-class criteria at the bottom? They are general criteria, not subject-specific ones. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, but I don't think that I, being the editor of the article, can fill that assessment stuff. Or can I? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? Just be honest. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent the last 90 minutes bringing the article up to code and feel I have shown definite notability since its DVD release of last May. Might you suggest anything else I might add? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but is it good material for the article? - Talk:Hasta la vista, baby (film)#Terminator to Dirty Harry. Schwarzenegger included to this two catchphrases associated with Terminator films ("You are terminated"). What do you think? If not, it can stay on talk page. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of the opinion that quotes articles generally are more appropriately integrated into the article about the movie. It provides clearer context and less redundancy. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of your suggestions. I need you to look over some of the changes I made, as some require further input from you. Thanks again for the extensive review, I appreciate the comments. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you get the chance, can you take another look? Thanks. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jolly Days - Kannada Movie 2009, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jolly Days - Kannada Movie 2009 is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jolly Days - Kannada Movie 2009, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This category is no longer used by the banner, right? Can it be deleted? PC78 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes, I believe. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can not make romanization of Japanese by myself. I have asked other wikipedian to do it in the future. Then I will start such articles. --Snek01 (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a bot to take care of this, so the category should be empty later today. Once done you should be able to remove the obsolete code from the banner. Regards. PC78 (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done; category is now empty. I was thinking, whenever I see {{Film needs synopsis}}, {{Film needs cast section}} or {{Filmimage}} on a talk page I always replace them with the appropriate parameters in {{Film}}. Do you think it would be appropriate to have a bot do this en masse? It would help declutter a number of talk pages, if nothing else. PC78 (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A most capital idea! I would be inestimably grateful if you could arrange this. With many thanks in advance, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request made. See Wikipedia:Bot requests (bottom of the page). Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot completed it's run yesterday, and all uses of the three templates have now been replaced. As such I have marked them as deprecated and added the {{WPFILMS Archive}} tag; I don't know if there is any interest in deleting them (I believe {{needs film infobox}} was deleted some time ago), but I shall leave that to yourself or others to determine. Regards. PC78 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no personal interest in keeping these templates; I merely added the archive tag to these (and a few others) per its use here. If there is no historcal interest for the project then I'm fine with deletion. PC78 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While occasionally, merge is an outcome in AFD, the page is specifically for deletion discussions. Since you state in the nomination that merging might benefit the parent article, I think the best course of action is to retract the nomination and start a WP:MERGE discussion on one of the relevant talk pages instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Girolamo! I've noticed you've re-rated the Rififi article i've worked on quite a bit to start twice. You know more about WP:Films then I do, and since I'm trying my hardest to make it a GA, I'm not sure what it's missing. Is it just lacking the six sections in the article? I'm not sure. I just want to make it more fixed up before I starts being reviewed for a GA status. Cheers. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I started article Season of the Sun (1956 film) and texts with two sceenshots partly moved from Season of the Sun article. Maybe those two sceenshots are not fair use now while I uploaded a free poster and maybe such sceenshots should be deleted. Maybe even although there is a director as an actor himself. Feel free to delete them if you want to. Thank you or your help. --Snek01 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think, that the German poster File:GolemPoster.jpg for 1920 film The Golem: How He Came into the World is not PD. Am I right? I think that US poster is PD, but a German not. Should there be both versions? --Snek01 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to an unfortunate recent episode in which Eco was indefblocked (and then retired) for real-life harassment, we have a coordinator slot open. See discussion here. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was certainly a nice surprise, I hadn't expected that at all! Thank you very much indeed! :) PC78 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for my barnstar. Promptly moved to my user page! Most of the 5,000+ articles I've started relate to films, actors, directors etc. Nice to see it's appreicated. ;-) Thanks again, GS! Lugnuts (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giro. Are you are of Ed Fitzgerald's complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass move of films with Spanish titles. I've noticed several Argentine films I created which haave common English titles internationally moved back to Spanish as a result of admin cleanup in response to the perceived problem. I thought there was a consensus that the titles should be moved to English providing the film has been released internationally under a English title? Could you let me know your thoughts on it thanks? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I can only assume it's a case of collateral damage. Both you and Ed are correct - films with common English titles should be using those, while films without them should not be translating their titles into English sui generis. How can I assist, specifically? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heard about the unfortunate incident regarding Ecoleetage, and in fact I even chanced upon the discussion you guys were having on the coordinator's page (hey, I like to know what's going on!). While I'm a little surprised that no other names entered the frame, it's certainly nice to be thought of in such esteem by a number of editors who I in turn think very highly of. :) With that in mind I will gladly accept the position, providing that there are no objections from anyone. Thank you for your consideration! PC78 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the necessity for deleting the page. I think i have given sufficient references to show that filming starts in august. even if the filming has started, why should it be deleted? isn't it enough to edit that one line where it says filming will start in august????? --Coolmukund (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erik that I was premature in creating the article Up in the Air (film). I've merged the contents into Up in the Air and archived the content in anticipation that it will start film on March 3, 2009 as planned.

Now that I've archived the content, I will support the quick delete. I am sorry for prematurely creating the article. I will let you know when filming officially starts before re-creating the article in the future.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could weigh in on the discussion on the talk page of the article. Two editors have removed the information about the faux trailers from the plot section and one has discussed with me on the talk page of recreating the faux trailers stand-alone section. In the A-class review, you recommended splitting the section up, so I was hoping you could weigh in so we can determine the best way to deal with the information. I left you a notice a few days ago about also taking a look at the A-class review when you get a chance, not sure if you missed it or not. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been meaning to completing (and almost certainly promoting) the article. 24 hours, hopefully. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the additional issues and supporting the article. Could you still comment on the talk page of the article about the faux trailers? I think that, along with updating the awards, will be one of my last major obstacles before advancing to FAC. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the recent debacle over the state of the project banner, I approached User:Happy-melon for a bit of technical advice; see discussion here. In short, the banner is appearing uncollapsed because the user has javascript disabled, and the only way to fix this seems to be for the user to have javascript enabled. So from our side there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it, other than to perhaps make the uncollapsed banner a bit more digestible for those who are stuck with it. It is, to be fair, pretty huge with both the Start-to-B instructions and B-Class checklist. PC78 (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girolamo. While I'm sure the response to the AN/I thread is not what you were hoping for, based on past experience—I read the noticeboard most days—I find it highly unlikely that administrator intervention will come into play at this stage. As you say, Gimmetrow has a good record, and this incident has now been logged for all to see should it need to be referenced in the future. I hope you don't feel aggrieved by my darting from talk page to talk page this evening trying to prevent this turning into a major issue, but I honestly don't think any good would have come of it. As it stands, Gimmetrow seems more willing to discuss the issues this evening, and let the banner thing rest while we tweak it. I think it would be more diplomatic to let it go lest the drama escalate any further, with no guarantee of a 100% successful outcome. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure you want to respond to this, I encourage you to hold your tongue for the time being. Don't add on to the AN/I report either; doubt that it will help matters at this point. The better footwork we have with this, the faster we can find a reasonable solution, the quicker we can put this inane matter behind us. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi giro. For the wiki linked page above you assessed as Start class. But the problem was most of the present info about soundtrack and reception and summary were deleted by IP vandalism. I just reverted them all back. Could you reassess it again. I don't think it qualifies for a Start class in any way. "Legolas" (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it qualifies for B-class, then you can check it against the B-criteria (see the project banner on the talk page, under Improving This Article) and start filling out the checklist. If all five criteria are met, then it can qualify as B. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the flub on the tag for this film - I meant to take out only the "needs synopsis" param, not the task force parameters. My goof. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I move this to Inside (film) or hold out as there are some other "Inside" films whose articles haven't been created, and the possibility of a remake for the 2007 film?--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't get it off interlibrary loan, and then I just realized it was sitting in my library the entire time. Thanks, I've added a bunch of refs from it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this redlink to blue, so you can remove the entry from User:Girolamo Savonarola/dps. :P - Cirt (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably have found this by yourself anyway, but I've made a few proposals over at Template talk:Film. Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied to all of your comments there. Also (if you don't mind me poking around in your contribs) I was wondering about How to Be a Serial Killer and Japan (film). I recently kept these as Future-Class because I was unable to find any details regarding their release. If you're statisfied that they are no longer "future films", can the {{future film}} tags be removed? PC78 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much, but the IMDb did indicate releases of some sort. Films do get buried, for better or worse - it's not uncommon. Yeah, I'd remove the tags. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you had tagged a number of pages for speedy deletion with {{db-empty}}, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Yugoslavian Films, blanking them at the same time. Unless there is consensus for deletion, these pages should be kept or taken to WP:AFD. I am going to revert the additions of the speedy tags on all of the pages which has content; please re-add them if I am mistaken in beliving that there is no consensus. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was also coming here to comment on this situation. A3 is for articles, hence the "A". You can also tag the pages with WP:PROD templates. hmwithτ 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concern, so I'm going to unlist the remaining ones. They're not A3s and there seems to be no cause for deletion. Blanking articles then requestings A3s is also very unusual behaviour you really need to explain. WilyD 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, prods only apply to articles. As these pages are in the project space, WP:MfD would be the correct venue for discussion. PC78 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I created these lists. They are showing up on my watchlist. I really am not bothered what you do with them, I haven't the time to create missing lists. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has a peer review or A-Class review but doesn't use one of the corresponding parameters in the banner, is the page meant to be flagged as "incorrectly tagged"? That's the impression I'm getting from looking at the code, but if so then it doesn't seem to be working. I figure you would know since I assume you wrote the code. PC78 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe so. (Not anymore for peer review, though, since we don't do them in-house anymore.) Where isn't it working? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's actually affecting any pages, but the tests I've been doing suggest that this isn't working as intended. Not to worry, I'll make sure it's OK in the sandbox for the next update. PC78 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With your gentle push, a source has been found that indicates filming has commenced (if not yet finished). The one delete opinion is from a user now indef-blocked... so he cannot reverse himself. Perhaps time to withdraw the nimination? Thanks, my friend. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the gentle push. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think of this: {{Film/Core/sandbox}}. The idea is to have the banner check the name of an article against a subtemplate listing all of the core articles, to determine whether or not the article is appropriatly tagged. Works in theory, but the subtemplate will need updating every time a page is moved (dunno how often that might happen). Just looking for a bit of feedback before I press on with this idea. PC78 (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit too much (and difficult to edit, as we're cascaded protection). Generally, I just check the number of articles in the category against the number of core articles. (It's usually under by one, since Ivan the Terrible 1 and 2 both go to the same article.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. I did wonder about the discrepancy, actually. PC78 (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the spam whitelist backlog and this link is now whitelisted. I'm sorry you had to wait so long. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good sir! You are a gentleman. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you're free, could you please take a look at Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography? I'd like to take it to FL status, and wanted to see if you noticed any errors or omissions. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reviewer has requested that somebody copyedit the lead. If you're not too busy can you take a look? If not, let me know so that I can find somebody else. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to bother creating this category? Are we ever likely to have any core articles rated as Future-Class? PC78 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As core status depends on long-term critical reception, no. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the banner disables the core parameter for Disambig/Template/Category/NA-Class assessments; would it be prudent to do this for Future-Class as well? PC78 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - any non-standard assessment done in conjunction with core would be incorrectly tagged. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]