Wikipedia

User:Hoverfish/Archive 1

< User:Hoverfish
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Archives

Monty Python trivia

Hi, I just read your message. I agree, the trivia section is too long in Monty Python. And much of it is too trivial (IMO of course). I think the best way is to incorperate the trivia in the article (or the corresponding articles). See also Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. I wouldn't worry much though, be bold. :) It can always be reverted and then discussed on the talk page. I did the same in Michael Palin, I still have to make it better but at least the trivia section is gone there for now. Garion96 (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, just saw your message and also saw the vandalism was already reverted. For the next time you can read Wikipedia:Revert how to do it. Unfortunately it's something you need to do often. Garion96 (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Magic Christian

Hi, and thanks for your message. As far as I know, you can only save the edit history if you rename a page (i e move it to a different title). If you split a page, only one of the pages (in our case it seems to be the disambiguation page) will keep the old edit history. I guess what some people do if they have taken the material from an older page rather than created it themselves is that they add that fact to the edit summary.

Whatever. When I wrote that article back in 2002, it was exclusively about the novel, with the exception of the last paragraph. Why the article on the novel is now, four years later (!), a pathetic little stub which consists of one sentence only I don't know.

I can only guess. I've seen it happen with other "film and literature" articles as well (the best example I can think of right now is Mildred Pierce), and my theory is that people who only know the film versions add things to the novel articles which are incorrect. It's a deplorable state of affairs if people want to write about films when they have not read the book or, in more general terms, that people read so little.

In the case of The Magic Christian, the book is much much better than the film, which is silly and only remembered for the Sellers-Starr-McCartney-Badfinger connexion and some freak cameos. Another problem with splitting a film and literature article in two is that, logically, no place remains for a comparison of the two.

However, as the business of splitting those articles seems to be one of the current crazes here at Wikipedia, there is nothing I can do about it. I'd advise anyone who wants the get the whole picture to access an earlier version of the article.

All the best, <KF> 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your answer. I read Talk:The Magic Christian after writing the above, and only then realized that you were actually one of those I (sort of) criticised. So let me just say that this is of course nothing personal: I guess anyone who has written an article for Wikipedia about any subject (and knows what they are writing about) hates to see it altered by those who obviously know less. I was just surprised to see an article on a novel reduced to a one-sentence stub. Do whatever you think is right, I'm very reluctant to interfere. All I'm hoping is that the time wasted can be reduced to a minimum for all. Best wishes, <KF> 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we have only half a thread here, but anyway: what's going on there? I don't think we need a dab page. The Austrian magician isn't a major topic, and since the film is based on the novel the novel must take precedence.

Secondly, if you're splitting articles you must take care to note what you're doing in the edit summary - with a wikilink to the source article. Otherwise, you get all the credit for the writing! That's breaching copyright, basically.

Finally, your link "correction" in K Foundation art award was almost certainly wrong :) "The heavy-handed Magic Christian mockery of the KLF" is hardly likely to mean a reference to an Austrian magician is it?! Especially as the link is newly added and was purposely pointed at the novel/film.

No reply needed on my page, I'll keep a watch out here/at Magic Christian. --kingboyk 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Kingboyk, I did my best to comply with copywrite after reading your message. It's all a learning process for me. Sorry for the KLF mistake. What is a "dab page"? If you mean the disambiguation page, the story goes like this: I had been working to improve the original Magic Christian (film/novel) by turning it into a film article, with film infobox and style, when another user asked me to create a stub on the novel, so he could work on it further. It's the first time I get into creating stubs, disambiguations, etc. Since early today, I corrected all the many links in articles pointing to the film or to the novel. What remains now as the disambiguation page is actually the original article that was split and all its edit history belongs to it. If I knew there was a way to rename the TITLE of the article, I would have done it, to escape much work, yet till now, I haven't got a clue how a title gets changed, or what all the consequences are. If you could tell me where to look I would be greatful. Hoverfish 18:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Chitty Bang.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chitty Bang.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Film stubs

Hi there! If you can easily tell what a film is, feel free to stub it with a basic comedy-film-stub or action-film-stub, etc. If not, you can certainly leave it stubbed as film-stub and get on with your life. My hope is that by giving them even a slightly more specific stub, someone who minds that stub category will sort it further, or expand it. I regularly cruise through the film-stubs to keep them from getting too humongous; everyone has their niche. Happy editing! Her Pegship 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

AMG_id

You should bring that up at the main discussion... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. I'm going to leave it out until there are more people who say it should be put back in (the general consensus was to remove it). Thanks for your input and I hope you contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#amg_id in .7B.7BInfobox Film.7D.7D. Cbrown1023 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Magic Christian (film)

I left notes on its talk page on how to get to B-Class... Cbrown1023 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Teahouse Moon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Teahouse Moon.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is suggested by the guidelines on the orphan tag to inform the uploader... And I just tagged that other image for you, as you requested. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

List of films

See also:

I have no problem with changing the nav template. First, I'd recommend making a template instead of manually inserting a table. Second, maybe the template could be a condensed form of what I put on 2004 in home video (see right). Cburnett 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested Films

The page you listed on my talk page does show the requested films. There is also another one here. Hopefully a better list could be created of the WikiProject Film page itself as you suggested as it would be more under the care of the WikiProject, rather in a general requested article section. Nehrams2020 05:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Films is not a very good list of all of the films on Wikipedia. If you go to any film article, you will see multiple categories at the bottom but very few have Category:Films. They are usually included as various genres such as Category:Comedy films, Category:Action films, etc. So some of the films would be included in that category, but nowhere near the total amount. Plus, attempting to cycle through the category to find films can be difficult, as they may not be categorized correctly. I am glad that this article passed and was not deleted, or it would be difficult to find a film for reference. However, I have used Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality to find most of the films to add to List of films by letter. Believe it or not, I went and added every film from there in the last three months, taking me 50+ hours. Unfortunately, it is constantly being updated, so I miss out on more films that could have been added to various lists. So there is no one single list that has all of the films created on Wikipedia. I was attempting to do so with the list of films by letter but of course I can't get all the films if I don't know where to find them. I don't fully understand the abbreviations and color coding you are talking about. Can you make a subpage off of your userpage and create an example? Then we can work off it and format it for the better of the Lists of films. Once it looks more appropriate and helpful we can carry it over to the List of films page. I don't want to just keep reformating the page, because we both keep proposing new ideas, and constant changes might make it difficult for other users to see. Once we create an acceptable page (on your subpage) we can message other film users and have them approve it/improve it. I am willing to help make this page very navigatble and comprehensive of as many of the films as we can get. I will be helping you more later this week, as I have a few midterms this week, so I'll get back to helping you once those are over. Nehrams2020 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I was only venting about how there is no one single list/article that has all of the films in Wikipedia. I was initially talking about creating a page that branches off of WikiProject Films that has all the requested films, but a page like that requires input by other members. The subpage off of yours that I was proposing was a mirror image of List of films (just copy and paste it) that we could improve ourselves off of the different headings, color coding, and abbreviations that we both suggested. Once it is to the standards we believe is in the best interest of the page, we can have other members look at it and make any more suggestions before copying it over to the actual List of Films page. Nehrams2020 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That looks good so far. I looked at the list of requested films, and the abbreviations look good. It will need some more cleanup of course, but it is on the right track. I will help you reformat the page and everything on Thursday or Friday since I have a lot of things to do on Wednesday. This formatting doesn't have to be completed right away, so we have some time to work on it. Nehrams2020 22:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Years in film

Hi there Hoverfish. I think it makes more sense if all the years in film are presented in the same way as they are all essentially presenting the same material. It seems a little ridiculous if the vast majority of the articles are in one format, and just four are presented in another for the sole reason that they cover more recent events. Yours, Rje 19:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay

I have been going through the years in film and been adding films to the list by films by letter if they are missing. Occasionally I was fixing a redirect or a broken link that directed to the incorrect film. However, I did not fully look them over. I have finished adding films from 1885-1939 so far. I'll go at a slower rate in the next decades and check the films more carefully. Also start adding the hidden comment. I'll keep working forward in years, so it's likely that we'll meet at some point. So again, the 1885-1939 years will need to be rechecked. About your red links question, I remember seeing something about it a few months back that lists were only supposed to show links that went to articles. However, when I searched for it again, I didn't see anything about it. I deleted all of the red link films from the list of films by letter and number (mainly because it states so at the top of the list), but it appears that many of the lists in the Lists of films do not not follow this format. There would have to be a consensus on the talk page to determine if red links should be allowed for each list. I think smaller lists that have few films in them could afford to have some red links, inspiring editors to create film articles for them. However for the list of films by letter/number, I think that list was designed to ultimately show all of the films that have articles on Wikipedia. Please contact me again, if you have any other directions for me in Lists of films. Oh, and just to be sure, if you ever come across a film, make sure it has the {{Film}} template added to its talk page. If you know how to grade it then go ahead and do so, if not then just adding the template is fine. This helps to make it easier to find films to add to lists. If you're already doing that then keep up the good work.--Nehrams2020 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am experiencing a little bit of a delay, but that is because the list of film by letter a-d is 136kb long. That's why whenever I edit it, I only edit it by a smaller section. Sometimes I will get warnings about not being able to open an article(s) for a while due to Wikipedia problems. I haven't had any problems with any single article though, including this list of films. If you're experiencing a problem, it's probably just a problem with Wikipedia, not the page.Nehrams2020 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

List of films by letter & number

I have always wanted to split the articles into either individual letters or two letters per page, but have never had the chance to do so. With all of the films I have added, I think the pages have all almost doubled in size, so it would seem reasonable to cut most of them in half. However, I don't think that I should just go and divide them myself, I am sure there are people who think I am taking ownership of the pages since I edit them so much (plus I tend to usually resort films, add dates, fix links after people add films). However, it would require discussion from several WikiProject Films members into wanting to divide them. It should be planned out of course first if it should be by individual letter or not. If it was by individual letter, then a table could be formed on the List of films just like the table of list of films by year. So if you want to start the discussion, I'll agree with you in helping to set it up. We do need some feedback to ensure that we are not pushing over to many boundaries while still ensuring the lists are still complete and easy to access.--Nehrams2020 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the format you set up in your sandbox and it looks just like the table set up for years. I just read the discussion over at WP:Films, but it seems more people are focusing on the discussion about creating the red link/adding films section. So again, once we get a few more people to agree with splitting the pages, I think we should go for it. I don't want to split them without having discussion since the lists are so expansive. We can leave the discussion up for a few days before we do anything. Again, good job in putting so much effort into completing all of this. --Nehrams2020 09:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am pretty sure nobody is going to claim that you are taking over the list, they would probably jump on me first. But its good that we have two people working on it. Besides, I think I enjoy doing the "boring work" the best, after all, it's the only way I can explain adding so many films to those lists and assessing so many films. I just hope people can realize that if they vote to split the lists, we would be the ones doing the difficult work. Heck, you have done the most by setting a basic format on your sandbox, and I don't expect to see any objection. Anyway, I'm off to bed, I'll devote more time pushing it or finishing assessing films tomorrow. --Nehrams2020 09:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know any administrators that would be able to move the pages. I am sure if you go to one of the Administrator pages and requested any available administrator to help you, they would be able to move it. I'm sure it will be a lot of work divided the four pages into 10+ pages. But let me know if you find someone to do it. If we can't find someone, then we can attempt to move it ourselves and then create pages to fill in the gaps. --Nehrams2020 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and start the split, I'll help you to fix all of the redirects once you start. I got a lot of free time the next few days, so it shouldn't be a problem for me to fine tune these lists. --Nehrams2020 05:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Year navigation box

  • Yes, I am applying the same template to all film years, as well as other "years in topic" templates, to keep it consistant. -AMK152 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have add a link to the template. I will be working on this template and placing it on the year in topics pages and so you should see more improvements to it in the future. -AMK152 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anna Karenina

Thanks for your work on British Lion Films. I don't really think making a category would really breach any conventions, by the way, I just can't be bothered right now.... :p

Re Anna Karenina (1948 film).... I don't know where I got the original info about London Films being the distributor, and your sources are probably better than mine.... wouldn't it be better, then, to remove London Films from the infobox altogether (it's mentioned in the article anyway) and list the distributors as British Lion Films & 20th Century Fox (US)? Then we could get rid of the second "Produced by:" field, which looks a bit odd....

If you're not too busy, and you like playing with infoboxes, take a look at an article I just made, Adam Greenberg (cinematographer).... nearly 40 of his films have articles, and only a handful link to him.... and only since I disambiguated links to Adam Greenberg, which was redirecting to a baseball outfielder.... that's a lot of work to do....

Good luck with the lions!

TheMadBaron 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, somebody woulda had to copypaste the whole "amg title" template each time anyway, because infoboxes are not supposed to be substitures for main body content. :p
Personally, I'd like to get IMDb out of the infobox too.... but above all, I want to see a final, decisive agreement. That's why I'm not opposing IMDb, and that's why I'm voting for AMG even though I'd really rather have both than just one, given that neither is an unpopular choice.... I'm voting with the winners, so that the bloody infobox style doesn't keep bloody changing....
Speaking of voting, go vote for a Collaboration of the Week, you lazy git. ;) TheMadBaron 00:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:The Colditz Story

You are right, it is definately a stub. I classed it as that at the beginning of the month (October 1st) when I was not clear on the whole criteria. I have changed it to stub. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Cbrown1023 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, a lot of stub articles are going to be classed as start, as there is a small gap between the two. Cbrown1023 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lists by year

Hi Hoverfish, and thank you for contacting me. I sincerely congratulate you on the vast amount of work you've been doing with the film lists. It's excellent, and has obviously taken a lot of time. I understand that you wish to achieve a consistent approach with these lists, and I agree with you, but I don't have a preference regarding how they are done. I did a fair bit of work some months ago with the deaths within each year, and I always intended to go back and fill in the gaps, but I haven't yet. To put it simply, whatever method you wish to use will be fine with me. If you want to continue with tables, or remove them, I certainly won't object. As I am contributing to these pages very rarely, I will follow your lead. Rossrs 13:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: The Long Good Friday

I love this film. Heck, I know I wasn't even born when it was released, but yeah. It's great. As you can see, I was just copyediting minor bits, and seemingly accidentally removed that and the release dates bit. No idea how, but, feel free to be bold and add those two bits in manually. :) — Gary Kirk // talk! 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

List of films without article

Hey. Yeah, I think that's a useful list. Not only to track films that need an article, but also those that have a new article, which might need some fixing/expanding. For it to stay active, maybe you could add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films#Activities in Progress? Prolog 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Template for list of years in film, television, and home video

See 2006 in film, 2006 in home video, and 2006 in television. I modified Template:Yearbox to allow for 3 set of "year in ____". I'll work more on it after work tonight. Cburnett 14:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I did all of television years tonight and it would seem that it, home video, and film are all done. I have the the old templates up for deletion (here and here) if you care. Cburnett 03:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question on the film-stub template

Hi Mallanox, I often find films assessed as start, which are just in the very begining of their "startdom" and which do need help for further expansion. On some, the film-stub template is still in the article page, in others like Starik Khottabych it's not. Can you please give me an idea of what exactly I should be doing with this template, or what is its practical use for film members. Just the other day I added it in the article page of a film assessed as class stub, but from project Beattles as start and it was removed. I didn't insist, because I'm not sure of how practice goes. Hoverfish 12:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hoverfish. The template should go on the discussion page of the article. The template puts the talk page into two categories, Category:Film articles by quality and Category:Film articles by importance. You will notice that the entries in these categories will all be Talk pages. At the moment the push is towards rating film articles into these categories. The eventual purpose will be twofold. Firstly it will allow identification of articles that are more "important" which personally I take to mean the ones that will be looked at by users looking up information. Secondly it allows for editors to decide whether they want to move an article in very good condition to featured status, or if they prefer they can pick on a stub and make that better. The overall aim is the improvement of all film articles. I hope this helps you. If you have any more questions I'll try to answer them for you. Mallanox 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding, the stub marker which looks something like {{film-stub}} on the main page is used to flag up new articles, or those that are very short but could be much bigger. There are editors who spend a lot of time just looking at stubs and making them bigger. The stub tag is removed when most of the easily gained information has been found and added to the article. Basically when there's enough in it for it to make sense and give a reasonably full explanation to someone looking at it for reference who may have no knowledge of the topic. There's a degree of judgement to it, but the vast majority of film articles are stubs and should have the stub marker. The official explanation is at WP:STUB.

Mallanox 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangelove

Those two facts could be moved to a "historical parallels" section as they are not in the film dialogue. However, if these are the only two that would be in the section then I think changing the text might suffice, although Plan R does have a lot of info behind it. If it does not get moved then it should be trimmed.

These sorts of changes should be discussed on the article's talk page so that everyone else can see and approve or disapprove.--Supernumerary 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Work is a four letter word....

Your list work is quite essential, and much appreciated by some of us who have neither the time nor patience for it. Keep up the good work.

I meant to do the collaboration changeover myself on the 4th, but the powers that be, in their infinite wisdom, saw fit to block my usual IP indefinitely. Ho hum.

Right then, I haven't slept, and I have to go to (real) work in 3.5 hours.... time, I think, to log off. And watch Unforgiven....

TheMadBaron 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

List of films by letter

Have you begun to start splitting the lists yet? Let me know when you make the first split and I'll start working on the redirects, while you keep on splitting. Hopefully we can finish this all in a day or two. --Nehrams2020 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best to help you tomorrow, but that is also a busy day for me with classes/tests. However, I'll still help as much as I can. I'll have a lot of free time on Wednesday so I'll hope to finish that day. If you live in Austria, I believe you are 9 hours ahead of me, so I understand if you start at a time that is inconvenient for me or vice versa. But again, this shouldn't be that difficult to do. I think for the opening text of each list page, just use a similar text to that on the current lists right now. We can always re-word it later. And I don't think re-directing will take too long, the current lists only have about 20 links or so to each one, and will be quick to redirect. Again, the table that you created with the 20 links to put on Lists of films looks great, so we can put that on the lists of films once the split is complete. If you start and don't get any immediate feedback from me, just keep going, I'll catch up to you eventually. I know it is a lot of work, so I don't want you to do it all alone, you have already done most of the research and have started this whole process. I want to thank you again for all of your help. --Nehrams2020 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I just briefly glanced over the lists, but can't help right now since I am studying for a test tomorrow. I will be done and can help to fine tune them/fix redirects at 11:00a.m. Pacific Time. Hopefully I can finish a lot then. But good work on splitting the lists. --Nehrams2020 07:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The test went well, and I appreciate your interest. I went through all of the lists and reformatted them with a few tweaks (added the alphabet table, fixed some links, included the previous/next list at the bottom, added a category, and added the article grading on its talk page). I also put the alphabet table on the Lists of films page. I fixed some of the link redirects on a few articles, but the rest are just user/talk pages that don't need to be changed. I am also currently watching all of the newly created articles in case any problems come up, which I don't see happening. I think now though we have to delete the other 4 articles. I don't know if we have to move any of the talk pages over or if those should just be deleted as well. I think once they are deleted, we should put a simple message on the talk page of all of the letter articles detailing how to add a film in the proper format in relation to the other entries. I'll write up a rough draft of that on my sandbox and let you know once its done. After that, I think we should be done with all this.--Nehrams2020 20:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I need to go to class again (it seems that I'm always do that, but I guess that's the point of college), I think you're right about the deletion. I think we should just go through the talk pages and see if there is anything that should be harvested to these new pages. If not we can just go ahead and put the articles up for speedy deletion, citing the creation of the new lists. I'll talk to you about this in about and hour and a half from now. You can wait for me if you want, or you can tag them for speedy deletion, it's your choice.--Nehrams2020 20:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I created guidelines for adding films that can be posted to the top of the talk page for each of the lists. It can be found at my sandbox here. Edit it if there are any modifications that should be made. After that, I'll add it to all of the talk pages. I see you are not going to delete the previous lists. That's actually a good idea, and would probably help with redirects. Just let me know how this looks. --Nehrams2020 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add that the lists look good. I copied your table into a template at Template:List of films by letter and added it to List of films: A. Feel free to copy the template usage on the other articles if you get to it before I do. Cburnett 17:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines

Your edits helped to improve it to beyond what I started, so thanks for helping. However, I removed the unlink section for the year, since I believe for the lists by letters, all of the films should be linked to their proper years. When I went through the entire lists at the beginning, some films had a link to year, some had just the year, and most had no year at all. I just think for at least these lists, that they should all be linked to their appropriate year to keep them uniform with the ones that have already been added. If you want to add that line to the films without articles page that you set up at WP:Films, I think it makes sense to use it there. Now, should we add this information to the talk pages or should these be listed as the intro to each of the lists? --Nehrams2020 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should put the guidelines in the talk page, since the article is going to be mainly for reference for people visiting the list. I don't think we should split the S list, I think it would look king of awkward having it split in half like that. I found this paragraph from Wikipedia:Article size, saying that it does not matter for the size or lengths of the list. I think we did enough breaking it down when the four lists were pushing 200kb, I don't see that happening anytime soon for any of these lists. Plus, since we divided each individual list by section (Ab-Ak, Al, etc.) it won't take the page too long to load if when people edit they just edit by section. Let me know if you don't think this is right or if there is some other policy that overrides this. --Nehrams2020 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, let's put it on the list, I'm sure not all people look to the talk page first before adding films to the list. Do you want to add it or me? --Nehrams2020 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. That's the only way that I added films to the lists of films by letter when I first started was by director/actor filmographies. That was until I found the film assessment page off of the WP:Films page which had almost every single film on Wikipedia listed, making it much easier for me to transfer them over. --Nehrams2020 20:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If you can make it into a template that would be great, it would definitely make it easier to take care of these 21 different lists. The assessment list has over 15,000 films listed, but I tend to find about 5-10 new ones a day when I was going through the years in film (1970 in film, 1971 in film, etc.) because nobody every tagged them. I think in total, I have tagged several hundred to a thousand different films. Just recently, we finished the tagging and assessing of all of the unassessed films, which took countless hours. Again, if you ever find a film that does not have the {{film}} template on its talk page, please add it. There will always be somebody else who will assess it for you. --Nehrams2020 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
{{Film}} and {{FilmsWikiProject}} are the same template; FilmsWikiProject just redirects to Film. Cbrown1023 00:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I got the blues today, oh boy....

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

TheMadBaron 08:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Numbers list

OK, if you write the intro, I'll look it over, just like for the other lists. I hadn't even realized that the intro should be different. We should be sure to include in the intro that each film is listed twice in that list, once in each section (categorized by number, and then by amount of number). --Nehrams2020 16:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

New Cin Collab Section

Why do we need a new section that states what the current collaboaration is (restated from the top of the page) and why do we need to show who voted for it (everyone who voted should still try to clean it up)? If you think that the people who voted to support it should be shown (which I would disagree with but not argue with), then put it on one of the templates. Cbrown1023 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, it's fine. I agree with you. Cbrown1023 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Cbrown1023 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to buy your women. Sell me your women!

I have added a few screenshots, a soundtrack section with a CD cover, and a cast section, so at least we made some significant changes during this week. However, you're right, I don't know for sure where to find more sourced information to add to the article. We can possibly check the external links on the imdb.com page or see if rottentomatoes.com has any old reviews of it to add a critical response section. I'll check it out later this week, I have other stuff I want to finish first. --Nehrams2020 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Erendira

Thanks for asking! If there's only one line about the film, I would just use the novel stub. I went back & edited it thusly (and added a category). Thanks for putting in the link to a potential film article, as that will alert others that it's needed (I hope). Cheers, Her Pegship 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

wikiquote template problem

Hi Jeffq, I just noticed in Clockwise (film), that if the wikiquote is placed before the UK-film-stub template (and I guess all stub templates with a thumb image), it causes display problems (splits the flag from the text). This must be because of the imgage placement property of the templates. The solution is to place Wikiquote after such templates, if they are present in a page. The film, by the way, is one of my top comedies. Cheers! Hoverfish 13:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for tweaking it so everything's visible. By the way, I only started a stub at q:Clockwise. (I'm afraid I've lost my taste for watching films to get the quotes correct, and haven't been in the mood to watch films for any other reason lately, but I just had to get the "it's the hope" quote and its context locked down.) I invite you to add your favorite quotes to build up the article a bit. If you do, ping me on my WQ user talk page if you have any questions about formatting and such. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Stub templates should always go after the categories (normally the last thing on the page). Cbrown1023 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally that does not matter; if the article is a stub, a category gets added with the stub template that lets editors find it (like Category:Film stubs is added by {{film-stub}}). The guideline you request is available atWikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#General rules, but it is just a "common practice" (I just re-read that)... Cbrown1023 01:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Years in film

I don't see any problem removing the category, those pages don't really serve too much of a purpose except to serve as redirects anyway. I have looked over the later year tables and they look really good, keep up the good work. I have almost completed all of the years in adding them to the lists of films by letter. I am currently on 2006 right now and then have 2007 & 2008 to finish. I have a lot of school work to finish over the next day (I shouldn't even be on right now! Wikipedia is so addicting!) But once I finish that, I'll complete these matching of lists. I'm also going to most likely be away from my computer from Wednesday to Sunday for the Thanksgiving break, but might contribute a little to Wikipedia on my grandfather's slow modem computer. Anyway, you'll at least hear from me by Sunday. --Nehrams2020 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Could you please answer to my question on Talk:Jesus Christ Superstar (film) page? Geevee (talk|contribs) 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Participants.

It hasn't been deleted by anyone. It must've just been a glitch. I'll just recreate it. Cbrown1023 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Redirect

Yeah, I would (it's probably WP:RfD). I would also put a little note on the author's page telling them what they did and what they shouldn't do in the future... Alternately, you could just place {{db|un-needed; created accidentally}} or contact an admin and ask them to delete it. Cbrown1023 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: question on book inclusion

Hi, Septegram! I'm a cult/counterculture film enthusiast and member of film project. I had If... (film) on watch, so I noticed the addition of the cult film book, added ISBN, followed user contributions and did the same to the other entries. Then I noticed your welcome and warning to the author. I read the conflict of interest page and I am not quite clear on this point. I haven't seen the book and don't know if it's published in an important edition. From the ISBN I gather it's a new edition. From the film project point of view such books should be mentioned somewhere, maybe not in individual films but in an article on cult films (which doesn't exist yet, as far as I know). Where exactly is the inclusion limit? I mean if the author hadn't used his name to log in, we would only know that someone added a reference (which happens all the time). Is there any more precise information on this issue? Hoverfish 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Life, y'know? Anyhow...
If the author had not put in zir name, then we wouldn't know. However, anyone who checked the user's contributions would see that there was a string of edits on one date, all of which added a single book. There have been no edits by this person before or after, which could lead to a not-unreasonable suspicion of linkspam and, in my case, did indeed lead to that conclusion. I'm trying to decide whether to delete it as spam or leave it.
Septegram 19:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
He has added the link in articles of some British cult films. There are lots of cult film articles (Category:Cult films), so it looks like he added the link to ones his book expounds on. Taken face value, the author of the book "Your Face Here: British Cult Movies Since The Sixties" offers his book as additional reference to 6 notable British cult films. Hoverfish 20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
My points is that the author's intention appeared to be to promote the book rather than to improve Wikipedia. Despite the author's obviously considerable knowledge of the subject, there have been no other edits to Wikipedia by this account. No attempts to improve articles, no corrections of egregious errors (surely there must be some), no comments in discussions of minutiae of obscure cult films. Just a string of "and here's my book" links. I do tend to assume good faith, my credibility can only stretch so far. I'm leaning toward the "delete 'em as linkspam" side of things.
If you like, I'll contact an administrator or someone with considerably better experience in these matters than I to get an independent review.
Septegram 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not not favoring or opposing to deletion, I asked to learn if there is a set permissible limit for my own enlightment, since I may find such cases elsewhere too. Hoverfish 20:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I don't know of a set permissible limit, which is one of the reasons I suggested we might want to ask an Administrator. I'm still figuring this stuff out...
Septegram 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

About the director of 'Susuz Yaz'

Hi, I've found some information about the director of the film 'Dry Summer'. I'm translating the information from the Turkish site www.sinematurk.com where people can find anything about Turkish movies but unfortunately the site is just in Turkish. Metin Erksan’s real name happens to be İsmail Metin Karamanbey and was born on the 1st of January 1929 in Çanakkale. He graduated from the Istanbul University - Art History. His awards are: 1st Adana Golden Cocoon Film Festival 1969 (1. Adana Altın Koza Film Şenliği, 1969) best directing and the best film (for the film Kuyu (Well)), 24th Antalya Film Festival, 1987 (24. Antalya Film Festivali, 1987) Honor Award, Berlin Film Festival as you know..., 1st Izmir International Fair 1st Film Festival (1. İzmir Enternasyonal Fuarı 1. Film Şenliği, 1965) 1965 best directing for the film ‘Suçlular Aramızda’ (The guilty is among us), The Competiton of Turkish Films 1961 (Türk Filmleri Yarışması, 1961), best script ‘Gecelerin Ötesi’ (Beyond Nights). He has 42 films that he has done its directing, producer of 2 films, written 29 film’s scripts, 3 works, and acting at a film called Alim Hoca as the character of Alim Hoca (Alim Teacher) in 1998. I'm giving the topic of Susuz Yaz: It is the story of Kocabaş Osman on how he’s pressuring the villiagers by trying to claim the water from his field with his brother’s wife Bahar whom he has set his eyes. I haven't watched this film. I think ‘Dry Summer’ for Susuz Yaz would be the best translation rather then Summer of Thirst and Waterless Summer. This movie was adapted from the Turkish short story author Necati Cumalı's short novel. I hope I've been helpful, , Bahar (Spring in Turkish) ✍ 21:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks

I've fixed the directions for placement. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Winners"

Could you please see my question back to you at Talk:Seattle International Film Festival? - Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Film Barnstar

I awarded you the film barnstar for all of your assistance with the lists of films by letter, which took a long time to work on these last few weeks. That would have been especially hard to work on by myself and I really want to thank you for helping me. Only on Wikipedia can a 49-year-old and 19-year-old collaborate on articles halfway around the world in two very different time zones. Keep up the good work, and I'm sure I'll continue to bump into you more often as I increase my involvement with WP:Films. --Nehrams2020 01:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait!? You guys are that old and that young! (not that it's really that old, but for me, someone who isn't even legal yet, it is!) Gosh... I didn't even know that... really? Hoverfish, you are 49? Nehrams? you are 19! I never would've guessed. (I never really thought of it... I guess that thing goes with being on the internet.) Cbrown1023 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I don't feel any distance at all. I just never thought about your ages and it was weird to find them out! Cbrown1023 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

CineVoter Template

Just an FYI, the CineVoter template should be substituted using {{subst:CineVoter}} to preserve what you pasted. Like what happened above with the Blues Brothers, it changed to Psycho (until I substituted it and changed back). Cbrown1023 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Films Newsletter

Please check out the newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/November 2006 Newsletter. I'd appreciate correct any mistakes and (above all) adding information to it. Thanks. :) Cbrown1023 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 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. Cbrown1023 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

AWB

Thanks for the heads up on AWB, I'll look into it more later this month. I'm in my final two weeks of this semester, and will increase my Wikipedia attention as soon as school's over, as I'll have a month off from school (no stress!). I think I have looked at AWB before, but have not spent too much time looking at. Let me know how it works for you, and if you think it works well, I'll apply later. Good night/Good morning. --Nehrams2020 09:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I applied for this yesterday, so I'll finally get to play around with it whenever I get approved. I've heard of Sam & Max before but never really read them. The American film category branching off of the english-language film probably wouldn't work since there are some films that are produced in Spanish or for example both of Mel Gibson's films, The Passion of the Christ which wasn't in english or his recent Apocalypto, which had no english as well. Both are American films but no english. But I would prefer to have a better classification or standards system if there was one set up for WP:Films. I don't just add cats anymore by themselves, rather I add them if I am fixing the italics, adding a poster, fixing a mistake, etc. and still want to improve the article further.--Nehrams2020 23:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

1983 in film

Don't you think it would be more relevant for the popups of '19XX in film' to show more information? Thanks.--Gkklein 19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Which popups do you mean? Hoverfish 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC) - Oh, you're the one who put Events under Top Grossing. I am not in Events. I have been doing general work in the lists and adding to several other sections. I just let Events there, even if empty, for the Event gnomes. Hoverfish 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick note to say thanks for looking at the Up Series page. As you saw User:BillyH already took care of the problem but I appreciate your looking at it too. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Father and Son

Hi Hoverfish! I must admit, I usually make a beeline for the Library of Congress catalog to check how they classify titles. This one is definitely an autobiography and not a novel. Cheers! Her Pegship 23:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter (Years in film)

It is definately an importance issue. We could put it in "Current proposals and discussions" or "Project news". If you do a quick (or detailed) write-up and we post it in the newsletter, then you'll get a byline. Cbrown1023 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First Monday in October

Hello! I hope you don't mind that I removed the play and film "stub" templates you added to this article. Quite honestly, there is absolutely nothing more that can be said about either the play or the film to enhance the article. I like to think I'm as thorough as possible when researching and writing an article and I'm careful to include as much info as I can. I realize when an article looks short the temptation to add these stubs is strong, but sometimes, despite its brevity, an article is the most it can be. Thanks for allowing me to explain. SFTVLGUY2 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! I just read your message from yesterday and hadn't had a chance to respond before I received the message you sent moments ago. My concern about creating a red link for First Monday in October (film) is that it will encourage someone to create an unnecessary article. If someone considers writing about it and searches for First Monday in October before he does, he'll find the existing article, right? That's just my opinion . . . I appreciate your input! SFTVLGUY2 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Abbott and Costello Meet the Keystone Kops

Hi Hoverfish! Thanks for everything you do with editing films here. I see a lot of your contributions and it is all great! As for Abbott and Costello Meet the Keystone Kops, I underestimated how long it would take for me to complete the article. As you may have noticed I am creating a page for every Abbott and Costello film, and editing the ones that already have articles for consistency, however when I created the one for the Kops movie I listed it as a 'Start' and not a 'Stub' because I thought I would finish it right away. But, since I did not, you are correct in reassigning it to a stub. When I do finish it, I will bump it back to a start.

Thanks again for keeping me honest! :-) Donaldd23 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Hoverfish, I'm afraid I don't think I'll be able to help you much here. Seems like you know the processes and you'll have to go down that route. I understand your frustration, I've dealt with a couple of similar situations in articles I enjoy editing. Good luck with it, Deizio talk 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hallo, could you help me. What does this mean in 'plain' english. 'As per preferences page Raw signature (If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page; if checked, the contents should be source code, including all links. Don't use images, templates, or external links in your signature) ' Any help would be much appreciated. Culnacréann   14:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your Help. I've worked it out now, no image (flag of Ireland) allowed in sig. like above. So I just go back to the old sig. Culnacréann 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Collab

Is it time for the next CinCollab already? Cbrown1023 20:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Doin' it now. :) Cbrown1023 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Cbrown1023 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just sending it to the ones who voted, plus you and me... :) I felt I should since I notified you originally about the change. Cbrown1023 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on with him, he hasn't been here in almost a month! (Special:Contributions/TheMadBaron) I hope everything is okay. Cbrown1023 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice job with that whole dispute with Blofeld... the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article looks really nice and informative now (not that it wans't before :), but now it has more info...) Looks like something constructive came out of thi after all! Cbrown1023 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Day in Films"

... okay.... what I was going to say was "Day in films" would be interesting but tough to keep up with. Plus, most films are only release on Fridays (in the US, unless there is a special reason, like The Omen (2006 film) was released on 6/6/06 for marketing purposes.) So it wouldn't have that much information. Plus, only a few films are wide-released on any given friday, so it would be short. Cbrown1023 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
About importance: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Importance is biased anyway, the only thing that really matters is top and high importance (which is where I get my articles to work on). There are no real guidelines on it and I don't assess them by importance because I find that to be too hard and subjective... I think importance is for very big films that are culturally important, high grossing, or well-known for some other reason. Cbrown1023 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I pikced that line because it expresses my sentiments and is from a "Top" importance film.

Guess what!

Christmas is this month! I wish we thought ahead and did a collaboration on something like a Christmas special or other type of holiday-themed movie! Dang! Cbrown1023 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Thanks much for your comment. How does one rename articles? I was thinking of doing so for "Killers From Space" because the F in from should be capitalized I think. Ditto for the "movie" vs. "film" thing you mentioned.--Silverscreen 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Disregard my questions - I got the "page move thing" all figured out now.--Silverscreen 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Golden Space Needle

I think that the GSN page should be expanded. The SIFF page should be modified, as the GSN is not the name of all the awards, but specifically the Best Picture award.Alan 00:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do what you will, just so long as it all stays easy to find. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Good job spreading out the tables.Alan 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fish, Watch etc.

Hi Hoverfish! I put the copyedit tag on because it seemed like it was written by someone whose native language was not English; some of the verb tenses and capitalization seemed weird. I was just stubbing at the time so I tagged it and hoped for another editor to take it on. Thanks! Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Forrest Gump and Cbrown1023

That was really funny on the template talk page for the userbox! By the way, right now fellow WP: Films member Cbrown1023 is running for admin, so if you want to include your opinion, go over to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cbrown1023. --Nehrams2020 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

years in film (Ausrtalia)

Think you might have the wrong person with the editing the Australian film list(s). I don't mark them with (a) or (Australia) etc. Still nto sure abotu the lsits of films by country, the decade/years seemed to me to be the best way around. Although the country list did bring up some films that I thought should have articles that weren't in the decade lists. It does duplicate things a bit, I guess we can wait it out and see if it's any use and who uses the list. In the end if people use it, films are being completed either way. Peter 09:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Class needed

I'm not sure I understand your question... Cbrown1023 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dec Newsletter

Do you still wnated to include something in it? Nehrams and I are working on it know and remembered you wanted to included something... Cbrown1023 05:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoodlum friends

So you're Jake? It's a great photo. Next collaborations? Well, I'd like to see Blues Brothers 2000 shaped up, painful as it might be. The movie sucks and it's importance is very low (so low, that I like to deny it ever happened), but it had some great musical moments. I was looking around for a rental but couldn't find it. Anyway, I have plenty of other things on my plate for now. But something else is sure to crop up. — WiseKwai 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mission from God

Thanks, I've been spend the last day just looking for sources, which can be a difficult task now with all the mirror sites of Wikipedia (answer.com/reference.com/blinkbits.com) and all of the commerce sites that get in the way (ebay.com/amazon.com). I just want to see if I can get a few more sources and then add a small section on the sequel. Once I'm done searching for sources, I'll leave a message on the talk page and we can decide if its ready to move for GA nomination. By the way, if you ever have problems finding sources to links that no longer exist anymore, copy the link's location and use the Internet Archive and usually it can bring the article up. I used it today to find three sources that no longer "exist" on the Internet. --Nehrams2020 16:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Top importance for Holy Grail

The film is widely considered a very important comedy. If you wish, I'd rank the same for Life of Brian to even it out (and it did kick up a bit more fuss). Wiki-newbie 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'd suggest not messing with the ranking. Holy Grail has a very large cult following and is the most popular of the Pythons films: in fact, cult has become an understatement for it's popularity. Wiki-newbie 20:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Who's Quentin?

Hey Hover, I put two ugly templates on that page ({{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{copypaste}}) and wrote a little more than I should have to explain what to do. The templates have instructions for a user to delete the section if they are not rewritten by Friday. I'll be wacthing the page to see if there are any rewrites and will delete the sections myself on Friday if they are not rewritten. Cbrown1023 21:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


RfA thanks!

  Thank you so much, Hoverfish, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)  


The Wind in the Willows

Hi. I didn't actually add the Disney Films category to The Wind in the Willows. Usually I think classifying films by distributor is a bit pointless, as so many can have different distributors in different countries, different formats, etc. But this is how Category:Films by studio tends to be used. I probably wouldn't include it under Disney if they were only a video distributor. BTW, I noticed you have been adding infoboxes to some film pages; if you're not sure of the country of origin, you can always look on IMDb, its generally reliable for older films. JW 10:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Copyvio in Twelve Monkeys

The section I blanked is what the copyvio boilerplate refers to. The section is largely edited, but it seems to be based nearly verbatim on the article I linked (which doesn't give any indication of being GPL'd).

I found the original essay on Google by searching for "the Peoples were faced with the daunting task of finding someone who would not only click with the material", which is a random phrase from the section which struck me as particularly unusual for Wikipedia's style. I was originally going to post a suggestion for a partial rewrite (i.e. style), but the entire section seems to be copied and edited from the linked essay.

If the original text was contributed by the writer of the essay, or re-used in the essay (though the style of the essay seems to be more consistent than the style of the article, where the copyvio'd section sticks out), the original contributor needs to verify that and a note should be put in the article's talk page to clear that up.

I hope this helps. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 11:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cats

Yeah that was good, I always at least just add the year it was released, the country that produced it, the language it is in, genres, and move the stub templates after the category that it corresponds to (ex. first put category:Comedy films then the template {{comedy-film-stub}}) so it's better organized. Then you can if you want include if the film is black and white, direct-to-video, etc. I usually look at other popular/similar films to look for other categories that may correspond to the page I'm looking at. --Nehrams2020 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be more than happy if you created one (guidelines for cats referring to your post on Nehrams' page), it's in the Sidebar, the Categorization Department. (not started yet ;)). Cbrown1023 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Newsletter

Of course you can look at the newsletter! I'm surprised you'd even have to ask! :) The newsletter's location follows the same format the previous one did and the rest will. They are all under the Outreach Department's space with a / after outreach followed by the month, the year, and the Newsletter. The current one (or future I guess...) is available at:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/December 2006 Newsletter. Cbrown1023 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I did it. You could even have done it yourself if you wanted to, it's your newsletter! I don't mind if you change anything, and I don't think Nehrams does either (I hope he doesn't ;)). Feel free to add (maybe... it's a little big, just use your own judgement) and change anything. :) Cbrown1023 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and don't take this to mean that I don't feel like doing it, I'm more than happy to do it! :) (see the smiley?) I just mean that you can edit whatever you want. Cbrown1023 22:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Films without article by award

Thanks for the appreciation for the film award list. I do think the list has some merit, I was originally going to split the list into each award but there's not enough to do that. I also had the nominated films on a separate list but I think it can all go on one page, it's easier to keep track of that way. I think a list like this gives a definite starting point or priority for films without articles. These titles can either be copied or moved to the decade lists also. I've been doing a bit with the Australian list but want to refine it right back to the main films back on the main page once notable films have been noted, then keep the lists with basic details if people want to add less notable films later. Peter 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing

Hi again! Sure, I'll pitch in. What did you have in mind? Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother

Hehe... I feel like Big Brother, I have all your talk pages watchlisted (super's, yours, pegs', nehm's...) so I see all your conversations. Then you tell me that you have asked/told so and so, and I have a little grin, having seen it alredy. :) Your pages are watchlisted not so I can spy on you, though, but so that if you ever reply to one of my posts directly, I can look at it there. But, you know, I always find my little ways to actually sneak into your conversations... Cbrown1023 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want to do it? AWB is a lot faster and it is hard work by hand. Um... about your problems with AWB, I had the same problems (I think).... I looked at the AWB FAQ or something and found I was missing some thing, it took like a minute to download and then I was ready... see if that solves your problem, I'm pretty sure that you could use AWB to help Wikipedia a lot. Cbrown1023 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AWB

Yeah, I looked it up and I guess it was a comic book first before the video game. My video game time has also decreased, but I still devote some time to playing, after schoolwork of course. I hope I don't have any problems with the AWB, but it's always a possibility, so I'll let you know how that goes. Let me know what you and Her Pegship (fish?!, that was funny) come up with. --Nehrams2020 00:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In case Her Pegship wonders what we are talking about, here is the edit history: [1]. Hoverfish|Talk 22:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hoverfish/Archive_1&oldid=1157578063"