Wikipedia

User:Hoverfish/Archive 3

< User:Hoverfish
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Archives

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 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. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

wikiproject newsletter

Just stumbled across this newsletter thing and thought a mention to missing articles could be added somewhere in the next issue? January 2007 Newsletter Peter 01:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Films with missing article sub-project

I guess I am changing the initial direction of the original list by proposing a list of existing articles that can be checked for categorization, disambiguation and all the other areas mentioned. I think this is definitely a project considering, as just going through hundreds of films as I have the past few days, some have the same title and even same year, there is a lot of inconsistency with film titles and years with IMDB, along with some article titles not going to disambiguation pages, some films not categorized or without infoboxes etc. I see this same listing going across the board with all other countries. At first I felt the country listings were a little unuseful but after refining them, I think it's definitely helped see the need for film article cleanup and consistency across the board. Peter 13:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

IMDB dates seem out of sinc with wikipedia articles not that that's a bad thing, I don't see IMDB as the ultimate authority as that too is user edited. I just read somewhere that wikipedia tries to line up dates with IMDB as much as possible. I agree that the country listing could be a real disaster. The Australian films have come directly from the IMDB country category Australia so they might double up their countries calling it "Australian" even though it might only have a minor Australian actor or producer or something. In this case, it shouldn't be categorised as an Australian film I think. Let me know when the sub-project is underway so I can contribute :)Peter 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Class=Needed

I'm not sure what you mean... class=Needed is for articles that don't exist yet but need to be created sometime... Like if you are ever look for articles to create, you just look in Category:Needed film articles and you should find some to make... if that's not what you mean, then contact me again. :) Cbrown1023 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Did you switch the CinCollab yet, or should I do that? (If you're not on, designated by a slow response, then I'll just switch it. :)) Cbrown1023 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I did it... it's a lot of work changing all the templates! So I've protected them all except for Template:collab-cinema, and made them all show what is on that page. So when we are updating, we just update that page (they're proected so no one makes the mistake). I'm also gonna do a write-up of how to change the collab because I constantly have to remember what to do. Cbrown1023 00:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Film series

You might want to leave a note for Lady Aleena, who constructed those templates & categories & might have some ideas. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Films by yea r

I couldn't believe that Casablanca wasn't listed. *gnash teeth, tear out hair* Should cartoons be listed? I commented out Duck Dodgers in the 24½ Century, only to see Der Fuhrer's Face. Merry Christmas. Clarityfiend 00:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Film series

Merry Christmas by the way, I'm probably too late now. Anyway, I looked it over somewhat and I think it should be limited as you said and provide links to the series themselves. This list will continue to grow, especially the lower film series. The only problem with that is that most of these series do not have an article devoted to the entire series (such as Air Bud and The Howling), so these would probably need to be created first before the lists are all moved. Are the people changing it in an edit war, or just collaborating on what they think the format should be? It should probably be discussed in WP:Films or the page itself. For your categorization endeavors, I think you should definitely bring it up on WP:Films so the core members can take a look at it and help you to maximize its benefits for the project. I would need to see some examples to completely understand what I think you are doing. The more people looking over these details, hopefully the better it turns out. --Nehrams2020 07:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:16 whole hours!

  • smiles* I know! But I'm not really back, I'm on a cruise right now... so I'm just using a satellite internet connection to check up on things and then am gonna sign off. Happy New Year (in case I don't talk to you again until after the holidays)! :) Cbrown1023 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

categories project

Getting someone to help us by using AWB definitely sounds good. I wasn't sure from what you said if you were for making the changes, but I thought it sounded as if you were; I played around in one of the sandboxes for a while and I think I got something working (it's on my talk page, since I don't want to clutter yours with it). -Elizabennet 22:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Films without article by country

I've done a bit more work on the missing Australian films (which can be the same process for all other countries). All of the individual pages by letter have been linked correctly and I've been going through and adding director, notable cast, lengths, genre, imdb links, awards (if any) to be able to sort them or pick out which are notable. I've begun adding the notable films (mostly just well known cast or awards) to the main Australia page and will sort them by year and add them to the decade pages also. Just thought you might want to have a quick peek and see if it's on track and I'm not wasting my time! Cheers. Have a good new year. I was also wondering where to move the existing articles to a project for them to be checked thoroughly for all areas for consistency etc which is completely unrelated to missing articles but I don't want to just delete them without someone picking them up for a second stage of some kind. Peter 10:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah on regards to the redirects for each letter in missing country films, I felt some pages for example Q, U, V, X, Y, Z have none or very few titles to warrant a complete page. That's why I changed the sorting to A-M and N-Z. I should have discussed this but went ahead. Not sure of any thoughts whether it should be reverted back or not? I feel that once some kind of notability is defined for each title (eg. known directors, cast or awards) these can be moved to a primary list and the other list can either be removed completely or just sit there in case people have an interest in the rarer films. Peter 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bat 21 already existed as Bat*21

When going to check it on IMDB, I noticed that the title had the "*," so I double checked. It turned out that Bat*21 was already there. Thanks for the tip about noting links that have articles.

Ntot sure if it's OK but I actually redirected Bat 21 anyway. Peter 08:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the film barnstar. Also I hope your categorization efforts pay off because with every article assessed and categorized, this project will be looking very good!--Supernumerary 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Country Girl has it's own article!

(moved here from subpage) Dear Hoverfish, Just to let you know, I altered your link to The Country Girl (the book) and directed to the movie. Was that OK? If not, I'm sorry. Al Fecund 15:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re CfD

You have my full blessing. Do it. :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorization and new template

I don't think I thanked you yet for the barnstar, so I wanted to tell you that I really appreciate it. You're doing a great job staying involved with the categorization process and it will be interesting to see what we finally decide on. If you have the time, can you also take a look at my proposal for a new template over at WP:Films? Please include/remove anything you see fit. I'm hoping it will help improve the quality of articles within our project's scope. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 06:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about the cats within the stub to start template. I added it since I figured the discussion would hopefully reach an end soon before this template was implemented. Plus, if it's a template, we can always modify it later to reflect on the new subcats. For right now, I think all film articles should have at least these basic categories and by adding this template, will not cause too many more categorization problems with the thousands of other films already. Let me know if that was what you were talking about. By the way, the template looks good in your sandbox. --Nehrams2020 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would be a good idea for guidelines to be included to help users. We can also direct them to the various sections of WP:Films style guide. Another possibility for the template is to include links to maybe three start class films, so users can get a better idea of what is required by looking at the examples. --Nehrams2020 18:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I included the links within the various points themselves. If you know of any Wikipedia policies that may be relevant, you can probably include them in the helpful links section. That table sorting that is pretty cool. Is that automatically in all tables now or do you have to add it? --Nehrams2020 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sub-article for long synopses

I think the sub-article idea is a good one. It sacrifices some computer memory to ego or sentiment, but it avoids a head-on collision with someone who is attached to his/her synopsis and provides the reader with a readable synopsis on the main page.

I dunno if WP is set up to log clickthroughs, but if we had articles with both short and long synopses, then we could see exactly how many readers wanted to open and read the long one. If the statistics show what I think they'd show -- that no one is interested in reading an interminable synopsis -- then that would be a good fact to wave in the face of the boring writers. Zora 10:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why a long synopsis?

I always write for readers. Who wants to read a long synopsis? If you've seen the movie, it's superfluous. If you haven't, it doesn't make sense. It's likely boring and confusing. It's like being trapped in a corner at a party by a bore who wants to tell you about the movie he just saw, in detail.

I agree that it takes a lot more writing skill to make it short rather than long. I also agree that such skill is in short supply. However, one develops by writing much and often. I used to suffer terrible writer's block in graduate school but now I write very quickly. That's what 20 years of being online does for one. If you talk to your friends by writing, you learn to write. You also learn that boring people make you hit the "next" button, and that you don't want to be a boring person.

The ONLY time I've benefited by a detailed synopsis was when I watched a Bollywood movie with no substitles. My Urdu/Hindi is practically nonexistent and I just couldn't make out what was happening. An online friend gave me a synopsis. Come to think of it, it couldn't have been more than 500 words. That was enough for me to figure out the plot. Zora 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

For me, I don't know that much about the whole categorization process, I just spend time adding them to articles. I rarely use them myself, but I know many other editors do. I saw the whole discussion between yourself, Girolamo Savonarola, and Ernst Stavro Blofeld and I was glad to see that the problem was adverted without too many problems. What did you think about the three levels of categories suggested by SamuelWantman? I thought something like that might work, but other people need to leave feedback about it. Again, I am satisfied with whatever we come up with, and will always be willing to help out once it's ready. For your photos, I too went to Munich, for an hour, confined in an airport on my way to Italy. Did you consider uploading any of the images that you took? --Nehrams2020 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos

If you have photos of Munich or even Austria that correspond to a particular subject on the countries, then upload them to benefit the articles. I'm sure you could also upload a few personal photos for your user page if you want to show your photography interests as well. Just search through articles that correspond to your pictures and see if any are worthy of being included within the article. --Nehrams2020 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. The licenses are really difficult to figure out, and I have uploaded all of my images here on Wikipedia instead of through commons. Right now I am collaborating from people in the photo sharing site Flickr in an attempt to get the right to use some celebrity images at the permission of the author. I'd say that you should look over the various licenses and see which one you think you'd like. I also recommend that you talk to Nv8200p, as he has helped me with all of my image questions. By the way, I copied the template and brought it over to WP:Films for people to look over and see if further edits are needed. I think at the bottom of the template should be a link to WP:Films. It would probably make it more visually appealing. I also don't like how there is only one word at the bottom of the template, but I'm sure that we can resolve all of this once we finish editing it. Good night.--Nehrams2020 08:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Column

It was impossible until recently. Check out m:help:sorting for details, and spread the word. >Radiant< 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No installation needed, it just works. >Radiant< 14:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Evaluation

"The grammar is lousy, but I'm mostly concerned on its 'length', which actually means its effectiveness." You cannot equate length and effectiveness, that's like equating quality and quantity. In terms of length the plot is fine, but if one were to go through and copyedit the whole thing it could be reduced. In terms of effectiveness, it's rather poor. There are many grammatical errors and awkward phrases that are common for someone who learns English as a second language. These errors make for a muddled plot summary. I'd fix it myself, but I'm pressed for time.--Supernumerary 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

That sounds great. That would sure beat going through 10,000 articles and copying and pasting the template in. However, once this is done, I'm going to go through all of the start articles and see if any of them need to be downgraded according to these guidelines. --Nehrams2020 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've only used the program once so far for link repair until I used CorHomo instead. I don't know, I guess I feel a little apprehensive about using outside programs to edit Wikipedia. I'm still attempting to learn the tools and its functions. Once I do that, then I hope I could use it for the start class assessments. --Nehrams2020 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that the actual name of the program is CorHomo though. That is where I found the program on the link you listed. --Nehrams2020 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The main reason that I got AWB at first was for link disambiguation repair. The CorHommo one works better for me than AWB. I need to learn how to use AWB for other functions however. --Nehrams2020 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Film template

It was not my intent to remove the template for Tap. I thought I was removing only the stub. Thanks for pointing out my error. SFTVLGUY2 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

About uploading own photos

The licensing on the Commons is no different from the licensing on Wikipedia. The only difference is that the Commons will only accept freely licensed images and no "fair use" images. If you took the images, then by default in most countries that parties to the Berne Convention (that includes Austria) you own the copyright. You do not have to file anything. The copyright comes with being the creator. Now you can certainly release the image into the public domain, but I recommended that you release you images with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 2.5 and consider dual-licensing it under the GFDL. This way you retain copyright but are allowing free use of the image for commercial and non-commercial applications with your by-line and no way another person can legally copyright a derivative of the image. If you release to the public domain, someone else can alter the image and try to claim copyright.

Wikimedia Commons will accept images up to 20 Mb (See Wikipedia:Image use policy). I usually scale mine to about 1600x2000 with very little compression if the images are of landscapes or buildings. JPG file size at that resolution is about 1.5 - 2.5 Mb. I did mainly because I was using a 5 megapixel camera and the image looked bad any larger. I recently got an 8 megapixel camera so I may leave the images a little larger in the future if they look good. For images of people, I usually make them in the 600x800 range out of courtesy to the subject. Unless you have skin like Halle Berry, you really don't look good at full resolution!

To tag an image for the Commons you can use the the Summary below. Click on the edit link and copy and paste everything into the Summary text block on the Commons Upload File form page. Put in your information for description and date. I suggest using your real name where I show it so you can get proper attribution if anyone uses your images somewhere else. Browse my gallery on the Commons and you'll get the idea pretty quick. Let me know if you need anything else -Regards Nv8200p talk 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I like the leaves in the water. It makes for an interesting view of the ducks. Let me know when you upload more. --Nehrams2020 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I should have been more specific about that. Since you are including license tags in your Summary,you do not have to choose a license from the drop down menu. Just leave the Licensing at "None selected." I removed the extra licenses and also add the image to the Category:Ducks. Everything else looks great. Nice photo. -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tap

No offense to the author or anything, put I see some more information that can be added to the article. Just one glance at the subpages of its IMDb page, gives new information and links to some other websites. I doubt that that is the most information that can be provided, and I don't expect the user in question to do any of it. It can just be expanded. Cbrown1023 01:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We kinda do need a "that's all folks" and the film image would change to Porky Pig. Cbrown1023 01:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Welcome

I did it, but you can always do it :). I have my own at User:Cbrown1023/Welcome, but there's the default one at Template:Welcome. All you have to do is substitute them and put ~~~~. It's probaby easier than asking me! But I'm more than happy to do it any time! :) Cbrown1023 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice image upload! Ducks! Do you have MSN, AIM, or Yahoo!? If so, could you IM me, my screen names are at the top right of my user page. Thanks, Cbrown1023 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
lol... sadly no, and yeah, you should us teens with our initals when we're instant messaging! Cbrown1023 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol... I missed that :) Thanks! Cbrown1023 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories & me

Hi Fish! A while back you mentioned something about not creating Lists of films with features in common yet...please don't wait for "my blessing" but plow ahead! (And I think it sounds fine, btw...) Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Table sorting

Wow, I don't know if this is something you're developing or something you've found but I think this should be on EVERY table. This has always been such a limitation with wiki tables, I think it's brilliant. Do you know when it can start to be implemented, or if it already is? Peter 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think sortable lists means that it can eliminate some redundant duplicated lists where it's just a list by different colum, as a sortable table you'd only need the information once. Peter 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

cat additions

I agree with you, but I am currently on a vacation and only have limited internet access. That being said, I think we're mostly of the same mind regarding the categorization issues, so feel free to edit as you will (you already should! :) ). Many thanks for the heads up, Girolamo Savonarola 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about article status

What is the right procedure for elevating the status of an article from stub to start. It seems to me The State of Things (film) is no longer a stub. Can I go ahead and change the template in the discussion page even though I am one of its main contributors? Or what do I do? Cott12 Talk 13:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Citation template

Ok! Rintrah 13:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Night at the Museum

I have some discussion at the film article about the plot length, and I think it looks fine as it was before it got reverted. Could you take a look and include any feedback if you can? --Nehrams2020 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I keep attempting to explain to him that the plot summary is nothing out of the ordinary and showed some examples of FA/GA film articles that has similar length/detail plot summaries. Well, I guess you can't please everyone? I'll wait until there is more discussion then just the two of us, and we'll see how it goes from there. When I try to access your pictures, the image disappears, and it only shows the link. If I attempt to view the link, it does the same thing. I've had that happen in the past with images in Wikipedia, and more recently. I don't know if it's a settings issue or my computer so I'll have to look it up. But good job uploading so many images to commons, I'm sure they'll be put to good use. By the way, I just signed up for classes today, and with 18 units, I'm probably going to have to scale back my contributions this semester (if possible). But after that, I can return to the same level of involvement in the summer. --Nehrams2020 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and that hide the summary concept sounds great. I just wonder if anybody would be willing to work on it, and if film-related articles would be able to receive the privilege of being the first articles to use that function (it looks like they need it the most though!). --Nehrams2020 20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I wonder if this problem happens occasionally, like the database lockdown or an error appearing after I save an edit (which has also increased a lot in the last few days). When they're finally fixed, I'll take a look at your pictures. --Nehrams2020 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Admin nom

My first thought was "Ah!", but I think he'll be okay, not understanding enough of everything, nor good at discussing. ;) Which are two things vital to adminship, so I'll probably oppose. But, just think, now he can delete all the things he does that he creates accidentally or without discussion! Cbrown1023 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

{{filmimage}}

I'm going to include DVD/VHS cover as one of the images within the template as well. I went through the Category:Articles that need a film infobox through the letter H, switching the screenshot/reqphoto templates with the new one. As I went through tagging, I removed some films that had infoboxes/photos fufilled, so when I finish tagging, I'll update the number of infobox requests at WP:Films. I'm thinking that when there is a category for the image template that we include a section in the Template:WikiProject Films tasks. I'll also mention the new template in the newsletter as well to get it more attention. --Nehrams2020 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for help with my user page. Kkrystian 19:39 12 January 2007 (UTC+1)

Plot

Now that plot may be pushing it...just a little bit. But again, that's some movie I'll never watch, so at least I know the whole plot. You really should look into the hide feature that's used in templates and see if it is feasible. One problem I would see about that is that if there are any film screenshots that are in that section, it would hide them to, so they'd probably have to be duplicated or moved to another section. By the way, I'm going back to San Diego today, and going to stay at a house that has dial up internet, so I'll probably not be able to contribute for a few days. I'll still check my watchlist, but that's about it. I have to wait to reconnect my computer in my college dorm. --Nehrams2020 20:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:POV Film Template

Deleted. Cbrown1023 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

I needed that. — WiseKwai 08:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Long Synopsis

Are you looking for something similar to one of the boxes at User:Master_of_Puppets/Talk/Talk or the template at Template:Heliamphora, where there is a header and a show button? --PhantomS 09:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out Wikipedia:NavFrame. --PhantomS 09:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, what do you think of Template:LongSynopsis and how it's demonstrated at User:PhantomS/sandbox? I tried to make it look like it had a === header.--PhantomS 10:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the intelligent message you sent me. I understand your point of view and respect everything you had to say. Thanks for sharing your thoughts . . . I appreciate your taking the time to write. SFTVLGUY2 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, work does take priority.

n/t Shane (talk/contrib) 16:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cinema of Finland

Hey. Thanks for the encouragement. I was planning to finish the article by the end of December, but I have been very lazy with it. I'm currently a bit busy, but I'll make sure to copy-paste the Early history section on the mainspace article, unless I get active on the article again. Thanks, Prolog 20:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi

This message is being sent to some of the active users listed on Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board/Participants because there are concerns that Hrisi Avgi may not conform to WP:NPOV (specifically, that it's being written from a pro-Neo-Nazi perspective). If you have any knowledge in this area I would be grateful if you could review the article and de-PoV it if necessary. Thanks! -- Steel 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Steel, no neo-Nazi expert here. Hoverfish Talk 21:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. -- Steel 21:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Years in film pages

In what sense do I mean IMDb is not comprehensive? The literal sense. When a webpage declares that there were only x films made in a given year, it's almost certainly wrong. The basis for these numbers is coming from what the IMDb has listed, which is not only always changing, but generally will be incomplete due to omissions by virtue of non-qualification on their standards. There has always been multiple concurrent research going on in the field - i.e. lots of films have been made every year since the 1880s. IMDb cannot and likely will not list them all. So to say that 1889 only had one film is just plain wrong, for example. My point is not to view the IMDb as an absolute resource; it is much like the Wikipedia - riddled with errors, but not a bad place to start.

As for the film lists, I think that there is little point in separating the films from the year in film articles, as that is what they are there for. We already have the [year] films cats, which the [year] in film articles also belong to, so I don't think there's much point in changing that. All I'd do, honestly, is change the heading name from "Films released in [year]" to "Releases", since the former basically is redundant to the article title and thus goes against MoS.

Anyway, good luck! Girolamo Savonarola 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I understand your concern, but on the other hand, you can argue that the year in film articles are essentially souped-up lists to begin with; assuming that to be the intention, the length does not need to be limited. On the other hand, perhaps the need for separate lists by alpha and release date (especially in the recent years) are not necessary. As for my name, it's basically from an in-joke from many years ago, and actually has little to do with the historical figure. Just kinda stuck. Girolamo Savonarola 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your pictures look really good, I can finally see them. I should have pushed you to start contributing pictures earlier, you now have quite a bit! Keep up the good work. I'll be starting to work on infoboxes again really soon, I just want to correct the Ben Stiller page for GA first. I'm hoping we can try for at least 650 infoboxes left by the end of this month. --Nehrams2020 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Hi there! If you add any kind of sortkey to the template code it messes up the order. The only way to get stubs to sort correctly within astub category (i.e. Category:Music documentary film stubs), is to use the new DEFAULTSORT feature on each article. If you put {{DEFAULTSORT:Noun, Article}} on an article, it will sort by that order no matter what category it's in. Until now stub sorters just put up with the lack of proper alpha order in the stub cats. Let me know if you need more info... Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You might notice that the articles have re-sorted without the "*" again - it just takes a couple of null edits to get the template to re-apply with the correct code. Also, I wouldn't worry too much about assigning a "regular" category that matches the stub category; once the article is no longer a stub, presumably the correct categories will have been applied. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump

I'll keep an eye on the discussion, I really hope it works. As long as it's showing a spoiler warning before and after the long synopsis, I don't think there should be a problem for the old browsers. By the way, we're doing really good with the infoboxes, I think we have knocked off 150 or so since we started. --Nehrams2020 17:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting to add the movie posters for right now and solely working on infoboxes and the necessary cats. I'm hoping that when the newsletter goes out at the end of the month we'll get more volunteers and adopters of the letters. I did about 10-15 yesterday, and I'll probably stay at that rate as we whittle it down. I'm off to class, I'll work on some when I get back. --Nehrams2020 18:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That'd be a good idea to get a list of willing programmers and possibly admins as well to assist for the project in coding, deleting images, etc. I don't want to dump a project off on another editor unless he/she is willing to do it. I'd do it myself, but have no clue how to do it. I guess ideas are all I can do at this point. --Nehrams2020 09:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is a < noinclude > format that could possibly prevent it from entering it into a category but I'm not sure. --Nehrams2020 09:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Bummer, that's all I could think of. Well at least those two have programming knowledge and can help improve it. --Nehrams2020 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Outreach and "needs infobox"

Definitely, I'm not that familiar with that discussion, so I would appreciate it if you would do that. I am just about to add some information about the development of a Film Board and a Tech Board for our project. I am not sure I understand your comment about the new Argentine films... Cbrown1023 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your dab request

Well, there's a few options.

  1. I (or you) simply remove the songs and proceed to make it a film article.
  2. We make a separate Beautiful Girl (film) page and link to it from Beautiful Girl.
  3. We create Beautiful Girl (disambiguation) and move the songs over there along with a link back to Beautiful Girl, which itself gets something like
    For other uses, see Beautiful Girl.
    .

Since there are a number of significant artists with songs by that title (adding Bing Crosby and George Harrison to those already listed), there's a good chance that someday an actual article will turn up on at least one of them. Since this was not a particularly significant film, I think letting people get to the article via a dab page is perfectly fine. So my suggestion is to go with option #2. It will leave, admittedly, a pretty weak dab page at this point, but I think in the long run, it will require the least reworking. Let me know what you think.Planetneutral 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Montreal film fest awards

Sorry but I'd much rather continue to create and edit articles on film and filmmakers than list the MWFF awards. This festival has declined in international stature as well and I don't believe an award from the Montreal fest is all that notable.Shawn in Montreal 03:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Village pump

I'm not really interested in the discussion about proper synopsis length. However, I am interested in the template issues you mentioned. --PhantomS 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian film list and notability

Hi, I don't know how closely you're following things at User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld now that you've archived, so I wanted you to know I've brought up notability again and referenced you. Shawn in Montreal 16:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm waiting to see Bolfeld's reply re your suggestion of a notability column, though. I see little value in the "date of release" column, and I think it's empty for a good reason. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, as to how to go about instituting a notability/remarks column, my inclination is just to delete the column heading with Date of release and substitute the new header. Problem is, I gather Bolfeld's apparently been creating many such lists and he may have objections to me altering the table grid. I'm pretty non-confrontational (it's the Canadian in me, maybe) and I'm reluctant to just change the thing. I'd rather wait to see what he has to say. Shawn in Montreal 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Don't know if you've followed today's discussion but User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld has proposed a 4-column set up, combining notability, genre AND release date all in one column. I think it works. I see you'd removed Release date -- are you proposing to take the table back to 5 columns, or just striking release date entirely? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

True, we had this discussion previously and I'd agreed with you. Then User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld explained that he had in mind a plan to, at some point, create some mind of chronology by actual release date. I'm not quite sure how that would work and I suggest he explains what he has in mind. If the release dates don't serve any notable purpose than the year column at left WOULD suffice, and we can limit the right column to just Notability and genre. User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld, please expand on your plan.... Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I get. I'm a little mixed up as to what's proposed. Yes, your idea sounds fine and I think Blofeld's in agreement, too, so please try it and see. Shawn in Montreal 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. I was a little concern that it might prove to complex for me but I see that all I need to do is make sure the "valign="top"" is correctly positioned. User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld should see it, of course, as I'm pretty flexible on the column issue, as you've no doubt noted, and he's much more into the design and layout aspect. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub box for Film template

I forgot to post to your talk page that I attached the message box to the template. You should be able to see a sample on your notebook page. The film template sans protection tag is at User:PhantomS/sandbox2 and the message box is at User:PhantomS/sandbox3. --PhantomS 08:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great that it is finished. So does it appear when an article is a stub or do we have to transclude it using AWB or something? --Nehrams2020 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I get it, I tested it on your notebook page and it appeared just like you said. That will save us a lot of work indeed. I think we should change the last line stating that the template will be removed, to "the template will automatically be removed" (once it switches to start or above of course). So what's the next step, I'm sure making it an actual template? Do we have to get this approved or anything? --Nehrams2020 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I usually have problems with multitasking as well. I looked back at the discussion (in the most recent archive) and it seems everybody was in favor of it. Of course when I say everybody, I mean me, you, Cbrown1023, and our two programmers. But since nobody brought up any objection to it, I don't foresee any problems with it. After all, it is only here to improve the articles. If they don't like it, they can upgrade the article to start, and away it goes. I'm off to class again, but thanks for all your help in getting this to work and helping to implement it. It will be great to see the template on all the stub pages and hopefully improvement in articles over time. Once it is implemented, I'll mention it in the newsletter so the rest of the members know about it. --Nehrams2020 17:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I placed the message in {{Upgrading needed}}. As for the changes to the Film template code, it's only one line. Just search for 'Upgrading needed' on my sandbox2 page to find it. --PhantomS 19:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fistful of Questions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greetings, sorry that you've gotten sucked into this. User:Mactabbed has been defiantly evading his ban through the usage of sockpuppets. When an individual is banned and edits as a sockpuppet it is common practice to revert their edits to enforce the ban regardless of the edits' appearance as "good" or not. Other users are welcome to establish any seemingly good edits but those edits then become the responsibility of that re-establishing editor. That said, I would encourage you not to do that as it'll just encourage User:Mactabbed/User:Maior to continue to disrupt Wikipedia with these shenanigans. Note that the e-mail you recieved from this sockpuppet = Maculas. This is just the latest in "Mac" labeled names this individual has used. Besides User:Mactabbed there's also User:Mactabilis. (→Netscott) 09:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bahar

Hi Hoverfish, I've just seen your messages since a note doesn't appear on mine when a message is dropped. Thank-you for your nice wishes both for the New Year and for my birthday, it was just a surprise for me. I hope everything is going good at the films wiki project. I've read the letter too and you can not know how ashamed we feel about this Hrant Dink assasination and of course embarrassed that he is a Turk doing this ugly act; actually nothing else then a traitor. --Bahar (Spring in Turkish) ✍ 10:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the clever and encouraging note.   Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Stand and deliver

I was thinking the 31st with AWB... Cbrown1023 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Film template

What happened with my previous post and then its removal is that I first requested comments when the code for the 'editing guidelines' box had been redone. However, I then decided to spend a considerably longer time with the 'more information' section, which has more complicated (and therefore buggier) code. After finishing that, I decided to announce my changes on the talk page, since it appeared that all of the new code worked correctly in the sample without any regressions. --PhantomS 14:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The stub upgrading box was never touched; therefore, it will display the same as it did before. --PhantomS 14:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox fever

Yeah, I haven't added the infoboxes to his films since I don't know where the ones he created are at yet (probably good for me). I think I spent over two and a half hours going through the filmographies and adding film, infobox, and image requests to too many films. Once I finished, I had jumped the infobox count up back to almost where it was when we started. The worse thing was that I saw that there are notable directors right above them that probably have twenty or more films each, but I'll wait until we get under 400 or so before I start that. I'm hoping that when the newsletter is sent out that more people will join in to help with the infoboxes. I looked on Blofeld's page and saw that you wanted to complete 10 infoboxes a day. That's a great goal, and I'm trying to meet that as well (either by completing 10 infoboxes/images). I removed myself from the letters I adopted since I wanted to do whatever letter I wanted. I feel guilty adding so many requests, so I better start getting rid of them. I appreciate your efforts in helping out, and I'm glad that there are so many other volunteers who are dedicated to this. When you count the pages with infobox requests for the WP:Films page, do you use AWB? If so, I always subtract one less than what they give me as there is one listed on some Wikipedia page some where, not in the article namespace. OK, I'm talking to much, when I should get to a few more requests before bed. Later. --Nehrams2020 07:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Muhammed

I would have thought so as well, however, there has been a religious matter before and this is another similar one... I guess we should remove it so it is not like the Muhammed cartoon controversy... Cbrown1023 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't include a repesentation of Muhammad here or in other articles pertaining to Islam. If it is for purely informative reasons that we include it, has anybody ever depicted Muhammad (or even Jesus for that matter) in a way that conveys their actual historical appearance, or is it some artist's imaginative point of view? It may be that policy and guidelines do permit its inclusion, but I am affraid that doing so would be like criticizing or opposing Islamic values as such. I really wish this wouldn't be a problem to anyone, but in this case I think we would be fueling an already aggravated situation and will endanger alining Wikipedia with one side of the (cultural?) conflict. If this is indeed our purpose, I too will be involuntarily taking part as a contributor to this encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention. Hoverfish Talk 21:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have only two words to say in response. Thank you. (God bless you). --- ALM 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hi Hoverfish, Thank you for the olive branch. That was very thoughtful and I really enjoy it. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian cinema

I have recruited another member to our film team User:Anas Salloum who is concentrating on Egyptian cinema and if I may say so doing a great job too. Please welcome him offically. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Geia sou Hoverfish! Thanks for welcoming me. :) ← ANAS Talk? 12:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Fu Manchu film.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fu Manchu film.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 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. Nehrams2020 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Why did remove infoboxes on the pages like Bhakta Prahlada (1931 Telugu film)? mlpkr 10:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your changes. I just noticed yoru changes on talk pages before sending earlier message. Realted question, is it okay to download cover pages from the web, or do I need to scan a dvd/vhs cover myself? Also lot of websites that sells movies have images and I am not really sure whether they themselves own them, since all images look same. mlpkr 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

 
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 02:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arabic..

Geia sou again (that's the only word I've learned in my trip to Greece six years ago). Having problems diplaying Arabic, eh? Try changing the character encoding in your browser (found in the 'view' menu in Firefox) to Unicode or Arabic if that doesn't work. If neither fix the problem, try installing Arabic to your system (you'll need your Windows disk for that). Actually Sorirart Biro'aitak is kind of wrong - it's spelled here like spelling 'Glad to see you', 'Glud to se you'. Get the picture? :D Thanks for your encouragement and all the best with your work. :) ← ANAS Talk? 08:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I like snowing films better

Yeah, it's already jumped up to 900 film infobox requests. As long as members at the WP:Indian Films are adding infoboxes too, I guess it's alright. Perhaps we should put a message on their project's talk page (and also WP:Horror) about assisting in the infoboxes (plus now there is a WP solely for infoboxes). I'll get to sending out messages tomorrow. Now I know how to deliver the newsletter using AWB, so I can help if the main deliverer is busy. Congratulations on the Random Smiley Award, I think a lot of us film members received it. For right now, I have a few big essays coming up (and the Super Bowl!) and I want to devote my time to the Oklahoma City bombing article to get it to GA. So I'll probably be laying off the film tasks for a couple weeks until the article is done and school slows down. I'll still update stuff, remove vandalism, add templates, and watch the progress, but I probably won't be adding too many infoboxes. I'll still be here for discussion, so let me know if there is something you want me to help with or vote on. --Nehrams2020 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BlueMovie.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BlueMovie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ask for help

Hi, Would you please do me a favor? I have seen you are a member of Film wiki project. Then I would like to ask you to take a look at Abbas Kiarostami, an article that I am currently working on. I would like to have your comments to improve the article. Any helps will be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot for your time. Sangak 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I too have just given him some advice over the bias! Bulky article that could look pretty good if neutrality edited and sourced . I am taking it easy today browsing through wikiepdia - the more you browswe the more HUGE you realise it isErnst Stavro Blofeld 19:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Hoverfish for your suggestion. I will do it right now. Take care. Sangak 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please give User talk:Sangak the official WikiProject Film welcome. I have asked for him to join Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

High Heels on Wet Pavement

Hi again ! Ive been thinking about my own talk page, and I wondered if there is a simple way to reinstates all comments that have been removed from there by myself (and other user, without my knowledge at the time) to show the complete history? then I can archive it when it is full, following the wiki conventions. Ive been to the compare changes windows but I'm not clear about how to methodically undo all changes,. thanks, obviously this is not urgent, so if you get a couple of minutes some time, I'm not in a hurry thanks. High Heels on Wet Pavement 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

re: J/O/N layout... thank you!! It looks fine now... I tried everything BUT the solution... isn't it always the way? Kind Regards! High Heels on Wet Pavement 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

request for membership

Dear Hoverfish!

Ernst Stavro Blofeld recommended me to join Film wikiproject and speak for Persian cinema there. I added my name to the list before consulting with you! I hope I can be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sangak (talk • contribs) 21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Template:Film

Done. Sorry that I prematurely made it without checking all cases. — TKD::Talk 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this has been solved, I have also replied on the article's talk page (the other problem you notified me of). Cbrown1023 talk 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and a lot of other stuff

I was hoping that they would be going down at a faster rate now that the newsletter was sent out and more of our members would be willing to volunteer to help. But I guess we already have the core members who have working on it doing it still, so it's better than nobody. If we can keep it to below a few hundred at least that would be great. I'm afraid that if I went through all of the assessed films and added tags there would probably be between 1,000-2,000 articles that don't have infoboxes, including new articles that are written by IP addresses/non-members everyday. Anyway, which statement did you mean in the article? Are you talking about the one that talks about the date lining up with the other events? If so, I'm thinking of developing a motive section and expand upon that. What is the film board you were talking about? Did that have to do with the translating of films? For the tech board, I'm sure we could create a new section under departments on the main WP:Films page for boards, which could also include the translation department. Another possible board is the list of willing administrators who can help with film-related tasks. I know we have Cbrown1023, but I'm sure there are others out there as well. Or another alternative is to make it a department as well. But this is our project, am I'm sure we could have a section devoted to various boards if necessary. Let me know if I need to clarify anything and thanks for looking over the bombing article. Nehrams2020 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I've started making infoboxes for the letter E, but I haven't been putting images in them, cos I can't work out from what I've read whether images in the infobox constitute fair use, or whether i have to get permission. I know this is probably a simple thing, but I'm new and I thought it was safer to wait til I find out for sure rather than go ahead and mess up. Best Regards... High Heels on Wet Pavement 11:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough and useful reply, and for correcting some of my mistakes. I think I'll take the taglines out-- they were a pain to find and I don't want to set a wrong example to someone else later, now I now what the caption entry is really for! Thanks again... High Heels on Wet Pavement 17:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PS! I started off listing only 4 or 5 stars, assuming the top entries on imdb were the top-billing stars, then I realised the Elvis entry was alphabetical by surname, and my previous method would have left Elvis out hehe! I see now they don't have an entirely consistently applied system, so will be careful to cross-reference other sites if they list stars on a movie alphabetically on imdb... I'll try not to make a habit of messing up while I learn the ropes! Cheers :) High Heels on Wet Pavement 17:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


That's kind of you, thanks---- I put the adoption thing up so I could avoid bugging someone who doesn't want to be bugged! As for your comments on editing my entries... on the contrary, I'd far rather get straightforward constructive feedback from someone experienced and sensible than have someone feel cheesed off by correcting my mistakes and not telling me about it.. it helps me improve and learn. I asked you for advice initially because I saw from your talk you get straight to the point, and I like that approach. Kind regards. High Heels on Wet Pavement 18:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

High Heels on Wet Pavement

ok.... I moved my comment from the Shane MAcgowan talk page (i think you may be referring to that) to put it on what I then realised would have been the correct one, a comments page, through the biography tag. Then I became confused between the dicussion part of THAT page and the article page. Aaaargh! hehe. Hopefull I'll get there. In future if this arises I'll just duplicate to avoid appearance of vandalism. Thanks for the advice. :) High Heels on Wet Pavement 11:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where I'm going wrong with tagging the image I've uploaded, copyright-wise... there's a big red warning! [1] Please could you look when you get a moment? I think I followed the directions you gave me, and I've put the info on the image page and the talk page of the image but this tag remains.... sorry to bug you again. Best regards, High Heels on Wet Pavement 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was sure I did all that, as I had your instructions in front of me in another window as I did it.... but as it was my first go, I probably made a mistake. I appreciate your rescuing the situation (again!) :) High Heels on Wet Pavement 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) ah! that solves the mystery. High Heels on Wet Pavement 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A few points (reply)

Thanks for the suggestions about the Looker film poster. I originally had it displayed in the infobox, but someone replaced it with the U.S. version. I was trying to keep it in the article, but I've decided there just isn't room for two film posters, so I tagged it as an orphan image again.

As for adding {{Film}} tags, I didn't realize it was OK for me to mark them as {{Film|class=stub/start}}, so I will do that from now on. Thanks again. - Alan Smithee 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Maintenance tags

Thank you for your message. What is it in regards to? Zephyrad 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. My comment wasn't only in regards to the article in question, and your explanations (on both fronts) do make sense... though I don't agree with the need for a split (my opinion). I mostly get tired of seeing articles I've started or added to labelled as needing this, lacking that, or a vague 'needs to be Wikified', and the person so labelling them not giving any reasons why, or any comment on the talk page (despite the canned notices)... much less any examples or changes as they believe need done. This gets frustrating, when no clue is left what's "wrong", or how it could/should be made right. I'd like to see persons who do this put their money where their mouths are, and I appreciate your explanation. Zephyrad 15:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Double sigh

I love editors who enjoy creating new pages with the stubbiest (not a word to my knowledge but you get the general idea) of stubs, and the core project members have to tag it, include the infoboxes, images, and expand it. And once we complete that single article, he creates fifteen more articles in the meantime. Then there are fifteen more editors doing the same thing. I'm glad I got to preach to the choir just now, but I really wish we were getting more assistance within our project. We continually have the same ten or so members answer the polls, bring up new information, and help with problems. I wish there was some way to improve the involvement within the project. I have to go to class now, but I'll get back to you on this. Perhaps we can leave a message on his talk page to look at how to improve the stubs to at least a basic stub, or at least he can tag the articles himself? I really want to finish the Oklahoma City bombing article, but nobody's reviewed it yet. Once that's done, I want to put it through peer review, and after that go for FA. Once that is all done, I'm going to dedicate a lot of time to completing infoboxes. --Nehrams2020 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we should remove the film template itself, since it is an indicator of what articles we do have within our scopes. However, a new classification of stubs would be great. There are probably several hundred/thousands of stubs just like these. I hate adding infoboxes to these ones since it feels like what's the point? We always hope that people expand on stubs, but with the sheer number of articles we have, that's not a possibility for all of the stubs. Perhaps there could be another way of coding to show on the category for articles that need film infoboxes to show the quality of the class of article so we can at least complete the higher quality stubs. If it is an article that has only three sentences, we could classify that as a new class ("ministub" for example) and know that we can hold off of those until they reach basic stub class. I'm hoping this summer to go through the assessed film and reassess, add more tags, and transfer them over to the list of films by letter, so hopefully I can classify everything better. If we could somehow set the assessment to only a set of members within our project, we could keep an eye on the quality of articles being added and make decisions based off of that. I don't want to overclassify, but with such a wide range of different qualities of articles, we have to draw the line or we're going to be doing infoboxes for the rest of our Wikipedia careers (unless we somehow get a large amount of help soon). By the way, I posted messages at the WP:Horror, Infoboxes, Persian and Indian cinema's talk pages for assistance to helping in infoboxes, but I don't think anyone so far has bit. --Nehrams2020 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you think we should have some type of election at WP:Films where we could request all of our members vote on several key issues to establish policy? We could finally vote completely on importance, notability guidelines, new classifications, plot summary lengths (even though we recently already voted on this), and other issues brought up by members. We could have a couple weeks of bringing up issues and discussing them by having a pros and cons side and then have a set week for voting for elections. We can then post the results on the member's talk pages and change policies/guidelines as indicated by the results of the votes. I'm hoping this would get more feedback than our random polls/surveys of the same 10 editors. Does this seem feasible or necessary? --Nehrams2020 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to chime in here and say that if you're going to propose stub types, the stub people won't go for anything like "sub-stubs"; it would be better to stick to sorting them by decade or country or genre. May I suggest that you look at various WikiProjects for help? There used to be a WikiProject Indian cinema, and there might be projects for various cultures or countries. They might have film buffs who'd like to pitch in. I'll look round & see if the village pump or community pages have any place to post for help. Lastly, don't feel pressured to maintain all the stubs! Take some time to expand an article and ignore the stub pool; you'll feel better about the whole project, I hope. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Hoverfish has a very good idea here. The official main stub templates should remain the same on the pages but if wiki film has a template in the talk page with a new level of classification -sub-stub rather than stub for film project organization I feel this is very useful. It wouldn;t after the mainspace stub sorting system but would be a category under film project. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad picture Mediation

Can you please fill in front of your name at Muhammad pictures mediation in section named What you would do.... Thanking you in anticipation. --- ALM 12:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was on wikibreak hence was not able to say thank you to a good person. Thank you sir. :) --- ALM 11:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Toolbox item

Hi, sorry if I'm being dumb, but what do you mean by toolset? Have I just d one it wrong on one page (ie a typo) or am i doing something wrong on lots of pages? Thanks, Belovedfreak 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. Yeah it was probably just a one-off then. that's a relief! Belovedfreak 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Cinema template

Hello Hoverfish! Here is the United Nations classification: [2]. It classifies Iran in South Asia and Turkey and Israel in Western Asia. However in most articles I have read about cinema, they refere to Iran simply as a part of Asian cinema with no more detailed classification. Take care.Sangak 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Here is another one which discusses cinema[3]: South-Central Asia (India, Iran), Western-Asia (Israel, Turkey)Sangak 16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I suggest we use cinema sources and or UN and UNESCO classifications. Because in different fields different classifications are used. For instance UNESCO, UNDP and UN classify Iran as a South Asian country, while World Bank classify Iran in the middle east. In cinema sources, Iran is mostly known as a part of Asian cinema (not middle east). Another example: [4]. Please be advised that Iran, Turkey and Israel are non Arab countries while all other countries in the middle east (including Egypt) are Arab and there is also Arab cinema and Arab World. See for instance Singapore festival, where Iran is categorized as Asian cinema but Egypt and Iraq are not considered Asian or Middle east cinema. Instead they are considered as Arab cinema.[5] On page 3 you see one movie from Egypt and two from Iraq. In other pages there are several examples from Iran. Sangak 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Also In "Cairo Film Festival" In Egypt you see that they (Egypt, Syria, Morroco and Tunisia) see themselves as Arab cinema not Asian or Middle east. [6] (see the festival's sections)Sangak 20:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
A search in google for Egypt and "Middle eastern cinema" gives only 350 hints [7]. A search for Egypt (and similarly for Iraq etc.) and "Arab cinema" gives 16000 hints [8].

As I wrote before a search for Iran gives 500 hints for middle east and 50,000 hints for Asian cinema.Sangak 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally most sources classify Iran either as Asian cinema (big majority) or South Asian Cinema or South West Asian Cinema. Sangak 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I understand the difficulties in there. Sangak 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes Egypt can be also classified under African Cinema [9][10][11]. All these three sources are academic (British Film Institute, Univ of PENNSYLVANIA and FIPRESCI).Sangak 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hoverfish, When I started these articles, I began with Eastern Cinema, meaning Hong Kong, China, Japan, Korea etc which after some good advice became East Asian Cinema. From there, I thought it best to ensure that the dividing lines be geographical rather than anything else. I initially created Southwest Asian Cinema, which was subsequently moved to Middle Eastern Cinema by User:Vastu, and I agree with that move because the term is more familiar and "Middle East" more accurately describes the countries that were being included therein.
Looking at the World cinema article, templates and associated cinema by region articles now, it is still divided into sections based on geographical locations. Even the Indian sub-industries, which nominally appear to be based on the language used (e.g. Malayalam), are actually centred on particular regions or states of India (and perhaps this needs pointing out a little more clearly).
I'm not wholly convinced, therefore, that moving the Middle Eastern Cinema article to Arab Cinema is a good idea. It may be true that the term "Arab cinema" may be more widely accepted, known, understood, but "Arab" does not refer to a geogrpahical location.
Plus, if Arab cinema is included in the World Cinema template, what happens to non-Arabic countries in the Middle East? What regional location should they then come under? Hmmm. Gram 17:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Either changing to West Asian cinema, or keeping Middle Eastern cinema and moving specific countries to their geographically accurate locations works for me.

At the lowest level, almost all of the cinema articles (approximately 60) are about the film output of specific countries. The exceptions being Indian cinema sub-articles which are on languages, although based around particular Indian states; and Quebec cinema, the French language province of Canada.

It makes sense that the country articles are grouped geographically into regions / continents as best we can. An "Arab cinema" article may be perfectly valid, but I don't think it belongs in this geographical grouping system, and it can always be included as a "See Also" on pertinent articles. We wouldn't include, for example, "English language cinema" grouping together USA, Australia, UK etc, which could potentially be a valid article, but the disparity of the countries' locations would make it inappropriate for the World Cinema template. Gram 12:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see this: Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Film Festivals Confederation. Sangak 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I will look for it :-) Sangak 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

TV specials in List of Canadian films

Hi there. Sorry I didn't get back to you early, it's been crazy-busy. A while back I had raised the issue on the article Talk page of whether TV specials belong in this film list. I don't think they do and so I'd like to delete Christmas Two Step from the 1970s Can. film list. I did change the category tags on the article to remove it from the Can. film category. Would you know if other national film lists are mixing film and TV product? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I did raise it here. [12] Is there main international project page and if so can you remind me where it is? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hoverfish/Archive_3&oldid=1147964556"