User talk:Erik/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Alien Nation FAC

Well, it looks like they closed the FAC for Alien Nation. I'm actually surprised. I didn't hear back on your comments relating to my changes. I think I made the necessary and appropriate corrections. Did you view the page recently? I thought after my most recent changes, the article would pass on its merits. I didn't really get any oppose recommendations from any reviewers, but apparently the article was still demoted. I'm disappointed. I'm not sure what to think. Theatrickal (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes reviews just go stale and the delegate has to make a decision on whether it's likely to get through this time. For what it's worth, I found some time these last couple of days to do a few reviews, and was preparing to lodge a reluctant oppose at the article today, based largely on the prose. It really needs a top-to-bottom copyedit, with particular attention paid to redundant wording and lack of compliance with the manual of style. If you haven't already, I strongly recommend you take a look at Tony1's redundancy exercises and perhaps WP:FILMCOPY. Don't be discouraged; it wasn't "demoted"; it just stayed the same. :-) Also, would you mind sticking to the one account? Take a look at WP:SOCK to see why. All the best, Steve ^T • C 13:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What Steve said. It was mainly because of a lack of traction. Were you unable to get coverage from Laserbrain? I saw on his talk page that there was difficulty corresponding. Since Steve recommends copy-editing, it may help to launch a peer review for that article. For example, Meet the Parents has one here. Maybe if you provide some constructive criticism there and ask to have Alien Nation (film) reviewed in return, that would get another pair of eyes on the article. Erik (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I also strongly recommend using edit summaries when you work on the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's hard to know what's been accomplished without summaries; diffs are hard to read, especially when sections are shifted. Erik (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erik. Well, apparently more negativity was surrounding this article than I was led to believe! I thought everything was going great. First off, with Mr. Laserbrain, there was indeed an issue. He was supposed to email me a copy of those reviews to insert because they are not available for free to the general public. I followed his instructions for email correspondence, but he later decided not to provide me with the content. He said there was something odd about my email. I inquired further, and he failed to describe what the problem was. So that was that. I inserted one reliable review from a film stub though, and I also inserted the aggregate Rotten Tomatoes reference as per your instructions. As far as the Peer Review is concerned, I'm actually discouraged from doing so. I noticed many times reviewers just write a comment here and there, but they don't always necessarily help out. The copy-edit issue is also a significant problem. I looked at the cop-editers page, and there's a list of people waiting for copy-edits as long as a roll of toilet paper. Meaning: if I put in a request now, maybe it'll get done by 2011. I wasn't aware of those manual of style, redundancy, film copy problems. I'll have to take a look at that later. But thanks for the insight. Theatrickal (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Try following up again with Laserbrain. If there is still an issue, I can correspond with him and try to add the coverage. Also, I am not sure if Rotten Tomatoes is the best source to use for aggregate reaction; see WP:RTMC – Limitations for what I mean. It would be better to find a post-1989 source about the film that reviews in retrospect how it was received. Erik (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to contact him again. If it doesn't work out, I will let you know and perhaps you can collaborate with him to help make those additions. I'll let you know what happens. As far as a post-1989 source for reviews, I'll have to look into that one. If a major source cannot be found, then maybe it would be best to just stick with individual reviews. Theatrickal (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Erik, hi. I just wanted to give you an update on whats been happening with the article. I made a few cosmetic changes adding some re-usable images to further help and compliment the breakage of the text wall as you had earlier suggested. Now as far as Andy's links; I had missed an earlier email he sent me. It was archived and I wasn't thorough in checking through it. Anyhow, in that email from awhile back, Andy described that my email was identified as a "Spoof" email. I have no clue why. Sometimes I get messages that are important, and for some odd reason they get sent to my junk mail folder too. Email providers are not always perfect. But if you're interested, you can try to get the reviews from him. If your busy or not interested, you don't have to. But as far as the reviews in general are concerned, it looks fairly sufficient. Its pretty much an entire screen. Now as far as a rough copy-edit is concerned, would you like to enlist? .........(but only if your interested) Theatrickal (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

low blow

That was a pretty low shot, Erik. Perhaps next time, you might consider actually reading the block log a LOT closer than you apparently have. I was blocked once for edit-warring in that article (the other two blocks were reversed immediately when it was uncovered that edit-warring wasn't occurring). It's okay, we all miss things - much like you missed that I haven't been blocked in almost two years. Pretty messed up way to try and win an argument. What the hell happened to you, man? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You brushed off five other editors' viewpoints as invalid and even insinuated that we were colluding. You disagreed with Howcheng. A third opinion came in through Andrew c. You disagreed with that. A fourth opinion came in through Hammersoft. You disagreed with that too. A fifth opinion came in through me. You disagreed with that. A sixth opinion came in through Collectonian. You disagreed with that. You thought that the issue needed more viewpoints. You said you would not concede. This resistance, knowing your history of edit warring, made me worry that you would restore the image just because. Erik (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You drastically misread the situation, Erik, and your response was reprehensibly inappropriate not to mention inaccurate. I had asked for Howcheng to widen the citcle on the discussion - an offer he firmly resisted, unless it was to go behind everyone's back and get an answer that served him by reframing the question. So now, Howcheng sacrificed a lot of good faith that way. After that, i simply wanted to know where he went to solicit input, to see if he had re-framed the question there as well. Let me be clear: I wanted more input, and was happy that it came (no matter the end result). All i wanted to know was where the input was requested. And hell yes, I wanted more input. I thought the issue belonged on a noticeboard, as the discussion was barely about the image and more about the exclusionist/inclusionist battle.

And I said that I did not concede Howcheng's point, not that I "would not concede". Two entirely different things. I did not find the arguments convincing; all i saw was yet another attempt by that merry little band of folk who want to delete all non-free imagery from articles. You know this, and yet you endangered your own film articles by giving this crew yet another level of precedent to take aim.

I see you redacted your comments, but that's a lot like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. You reverted the image, and even if I was inclined to revert (which I am not - at least not until a citation shows up) you made it seem as if I was some petty edit-warrior. It was a truly fucked up thing to do Erik, and I would not have imagined you being the sort of person to do it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right; Howcheng should have framed the notification better. He should be informed so he does not do that in the future. I hope my notification at WT:FILM was appropriate? You didn't get the agreement that you were looking for, I know. I've had to give up elements before, like a "See also" section of similar movies at Fight Club (film). I strongly encourage you not to look at people you disagree with as a "merry little band of folk who want to delete all non-free imagery from articles". Consider only the arguments at hand. I do not want to delete all non-free imagery; I want to add them where their presence can ring true. Obviously, the contextual significance can be debatable, and in this case, five editors agreed that the significance was not there. I'm actually advocating video samples, which are rarities in film articles. A couple of Star Trek films and American Beauty have them now. It is not so black and white. Erik (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss my conduct, please do so here. Erik (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you work out how to work together in future. And just to point out that they are not Erik's film articles ;-) Now we have a Java video player for Ogg video files, watching video is easier. In fact, I'm thinking of demonstrating some of the editing techniques with video examples, but am wondering about WP:OR and not using secondary sources for the examples. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the video samples at Category:Video samples of films? We also have WP:FILMCLIP for some guidance. Erik (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I hadn't seen either of those. I linked to a few of my videos a few years ago, but got my fingers burnt because I hadn't uploaded them to WP and used my own format rather than the Ogg format which approximately no one could play back in those days. Video wasn't as common then and no one who knew what was allowed was around at any of the relevant discussion places for six months. I also uploaded some videos in Ogg format, and these are still around :-) I'll make some edit to the WP:FILMCLIP page so I can find it again easily, unless it is perfect of course! Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What edit do you have in mind? I attempted to create WP:FILMCLIP and WP:FILMSHOT as shortcuts, and the multimedia department is listed in the WikiProject Films sidebar. If you want to revise the "Video" section at that page, talk to User:Steve, who set up the video sample at American Beauty. I'm in the dark about video samples for now, though I hope to learn to upload a sample on my own. Erik (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with fair use of Image rationale

I added File:Ken Branagh on Thor.jpg to Thor (film) and would like additional help to make sure it use is justly reasoned. The biggest justification is that Thor is closed a set so any images depecting filming is sanctioned by the film makers and published as non-free content therefore no free alternative exists. However if this image does in fact violate wikipedia standards please let me know I will have image speedy deleted. Thank you. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the image and reviewed the "Filming" section to see if there is any context. Unfortunately, I do not think there is a strong rationale for the image. Per WP:NFCC, the non-free image needs to be contextually significant, and I do not think that there is any available context that it signifies. For example, we already have free images of Kenneth Branagh, so we do not need a non-free image showing him. In addition, there is nothing unique happening in the shot. Even if there is technology to show off, it should be possible to get a free image of it. If the film article is to use any images, it would probably be related to makeup, costume design, or visual effects. I'm sure that kind of information will be forthcoming. For example, it's likely that the poster will show Thor, so we don't necessarily need to show him again in the article body. However, if there is context about the appearance of secondary characters or about a scene involving visual effects, that would be contextual significance to warrant including a non-free image. Let me know if you have any questions. Erik (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input I'll remove the image from the article and have it deleted. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey I just came across this article [1] talking about technology in the photo. Would any info found there and added to the article rejustify the images use? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, article seems speculative at best. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha

[2]Surprised you are ditching that, but still watching FlashForward, V and SGU... talk about disappointing series beginnings... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He's nuts. :-) I've only watched the first five episodes, but I must admit to being quite enamoured of Caprica. It's no BSG, but then it's not trying to be. FlashForward, V, SGU and Fringe however ... Steve ^T • C 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FlashForward was definitely weak when it first started out, but I think it is better in its returning episodes. V is not great; I kind of watch it in the hope that smart science fiction elements will surface. SGU definitely started slowly, but I really like the approach because I didn't follow the spinoffs and wanted to return to the franchise in a new way. And hey, Fringe and Walter have grown on me. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Caprica goes nowhere. The best part of the show was the virtual world, New Caprica City. I'd love it if Caprica focused on holobands and not the painful robot/daughter scenes. The fictional universe is just too boringly grounded in future/retro Earth culture. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also onto V, but the long break cut down on my interest in the show. I'm trying to find a new interest as Lost comes to an end, and I don't know if V's ratings are going to keep it afloat. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked out Justified? I've heard good things about it, and the first three episodes are on Hulu. I was planning to watch The Pacific, but I'm too busy to add an hour-long TV show to my queue. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Justified seems pretty good, but I'm not sure I should be adding more shows to my Hulu queue when I've got finals coming up :P I was a huge fan of Stargate SG-1 (not so much Atlantis), so the change to "TEH DRAMAZ AND SLOW PACING" still irks me, but at least they seemed to have learned from their mistakes. I keep reminding myself that the first seasons of Star Trek series usually weren't that great either... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I heard of Justified but I'm not that big an Olyphant fan. I really would like to see Pacific (Band of Brothers was great) but just don't have HBO right now, so have to wait till Blu-ray. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

• Sanger allegations: Larry Sanger accuses Wikimedia of hosting illegal images

• News and notes: Studying German flagged revisions, French library agreement, German court case

• In the news: SCOTUS hopeful edited bio, criticism from article subject

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Motorcycling

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RTMC

What do you think about adding something from this discussion to WP:RTMC about the subjective nature of the "Top Critics" section and the resulting score? Questions about appropriateness of RT seem to come up often enough that the essay made sense to be created when it was. Now I'm just thinking that we should keep it regularly updated when new issues arise and are resolved. For this, I was thinking something along the lines of:

Remember that the "Top Critics" section's overall score may differ depending on where in the world you're accessing Rotten Tomatoes. This is because your query may redirect you to a local site (such as uk.rottentomatoes.com in the United Kingdom and au.rottentomatoes.com in Australia) and the Rotten Tomatoes staff is given some subjective control in selecting "Top Critics", allowing for different make-up on different local sites.

It can probably be worded better but you get the idea. I'm thinking that it can be placed immediately after the sentence about sampling individual reviews from the "Top Critics" section. What do you think? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The writeup sounds good, but I think it's better to place it as a limitation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're referring to the "Index of usable sources" bullet point after the "ideal for sampling" sentence? Defining it as a limitation is more accurate, especially when we are telling the reader that "Top Critics" is not what it seems. Also, I'm not sure if it is a matter of "subjective control" that is problematic; my issue with "Top Critics" is that the sample size is sometimes insufficient when it's under 30 reviews. From what I recall in my stats class, and looking at Wikipedia's sample size article, "In general, if a population mean is estimated using the sample mean from n observations from a distribution with variance σ², then if n is large enough (typically >30) the central limit theorem can be applied to obtain an approximate 95% confidence interval..." Anyway, feel free to edit the essay and use its talk page. It's not the guidelines, after all! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of the "Index of usable sources" as a place for the statement but "Limitations" sounds like a logical place as well. The issue of sample size will definitely always be a factor whether it's the overall score or the "Top Critics" section. What I specifically meant by my statement is to explain why User:Belovedfreak and myself are able to agree that Avatar's overall score on RT is 82% but we're unable to agree about the current "Top Critics" score. I think both issues of sample size and regional difference should be resolved if my statement is placed below the existing statement on "Limited number of reviews" with a segue from one point to the next. I'll construct it and add it, feel free to adjust. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the invitation

I've started an account. No more am I just a number, a cog in the machine, a blip on the radar. Now I am Jack Sebastian. Still a blip on the radar, though. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional Lord of The Rings work; Blu Ray and 3D

hi erik. i started an article that im hoping you can help me on. it is about lord of the rings being released on blu ray, and the fact that new line cinema is considering putting lord of the rings back in theatres with 3D technology. if u have the time, please help me out with improving this article. thanks --Cman7792 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Cman. I looked at your writeup, and I think you should move the article to your user space for now. The writeup is a reasonable start, but it needs to be structured and referenced. Would you be able to move it to User:Cman7792/Home video of Lord of the Rings film trilogy? In addition, The Lord of the Rings film trilogy has a lot of home video information already. I'm not sure if we need a whole new article about it; we may just be able to add a few paragraphs to that main trilogy article. Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Film infoboxes

Do you intend to pursue Merging infobox templates? I hope so! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Argh, I forgot about that discussion... it did become stale. I'll try to follow up on it later today. Nudge me again if I don't! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nudge. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I'll try to start on merging one smaller template into the main one. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

filmographies rfc closed

fyi, the RfC is now closed and there's an implementation discussion at:

• WT:ACTOR#Implementation discussion

Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

• News and notes: Berlin WikiConference, Brooklyn Museum & Google.org collaborations, review backlog removed, 1 billion edits

• In the news: Study of featured article quality, Facebook's integration of Wikipedia, and more!

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Environment

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images

Any time when you're available could you swing by and comment on the images at the cleanup listing? I've left comments for all of the FA images to begin with and hopefully with another comment or two we can have a better idea on what should be kept or removed. If anybody else is watching this page, I would welcome your comments there as well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cloverfield

Looking over some of our B-class articles, I stumbled on Cloverfield. The article is still in pretty good shape and I was just curious why you never took it on to GA. It obviously needs to be copyedited, the plot reduced, the lead expanded, and some sources replaced/added, but with a little work, you could probably get it to GA fairly easily. There are various articles like this one in the category that are nearly GAs that just need a little bit of work. Once the cleanup listing is finished, I'll probably do a search of all of the articles in the C & B class categories and point out potential candidates for members to pursue GAs. We can look to see how some of the GAs could reach FA as well. There are many potential cinema collaboration articles out there, which could greatly expand our current spotlight articles. Again, I'm waiting until after the cleanup, but since that is going to take forever at its current pace (I don't want to relive Sweeps again), it'll probably be a while before I compile the potential articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I tend to drop out of articles that get highly trafficked. Cloverfield was just busy with a lot of discussions that I did not find constructive. The article may need revision with retrospective publication, especially in regard to its viral marketing. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I usually try to pursue articles also that usually aren't constantly changed (I guess that was a bad idea to strive for the main page!). I couldn't image how crazy it was when you guys were working on The Dark Knight or those focused on Avatar. Just thought I'd point it out to you in case it got bypassed by more current projects. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that was a bad idea to strive for the main page! Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here? I'm not sure how much I can help with Cloverfield, though. One of the major blows in losing my university account is that I can't check newspaper and magazine articles on a whim. I have to choose my projects more selectively now. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I just had Oklahoma City bombing on the front page, and it had the joy of numerous edits. Unfortunately I was at work for the majority of the day so I couldn't help to maintain it. You likely had more revisions though with Fight Club. You should ask your university to consider letting you use the account for free or for a reduced rate as you would only be using it to improve articles that educate others for free. If worded well, there's always a possibility it could work. As always, if you need assistance with seeing an article, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Final Destination 5 at IMDB

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Destination 5: The Death Trip: While the article written by User:Masolipis111 is frought with problems, the topic itself is not a hoax, and so I believe the topic itself may merit a merit a redirect to Final Destination (film series), where speculation of a 5th in the series might best be covered. Not exactly RS, but Slashfilm, Screenrant, Shock Till You Drop, and others all make note of Warner Bros. head Alan Horn announcing at ShoWest that they're planning Final Destination 5. So while the current article itself is full of unsourced speculation, the chase for consumer dollars makes the project likely. If we set a redirect, Wikipedia can afford to be patient and revisit this topic when it receives more coverage and in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a hoax based on development talk. Even if there is talk about a fifth film, the subtitle "The Death Trip" is completely false. The same editor likely created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: The Chipmunk Rampage (film). The information at the film series article is acceptable, but this article is not a realistic redirect in any sense. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Final Destination 5 is deleted and salted. We should contact an admin to unsalt it and redirect to the proper section at the film series article. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Gerund zero

[3] It is a verb, but the verb's noun form; therefore it's treated as such (see gerund). Imagine it with a more obvious noun in its place ("the supporters' table"). I think we've had this discussion before; I couldn't convince you then, if I recall. :-) Steve ^T • C 20:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I had that suspicion... what about something like "showed that Chávez's supporters were shooting"? It's a couple more words, but it may iron out the gerund weirdness. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing; if it sounds weird it sounds weird, even if it's technically correct. I reworked it accordingly. Steve ^T • C 20:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just doing minor copy-editing here, but I'm making a few points in an open FAC page that I'll post soon. Just getting the nitpicks that I can personally address out of the way. Chavez picture looks good. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_regarding_image

I've re-opened the discussion on the grounds that the removal of the image doesn't seem to meet any criteria for removal. Woogee (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Don Murphy#Photo. The licensing is appropriate, but editors did not feel it was necessary to include the image. Feel free to counter them. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that's not your real address that they pulled up on the website. :( Silverseren^C 07:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're in the process of outing me. Hopefully they won't harass my fiancee... Erik (talk | contribs) 10:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Erik Kraft here again. Sorry for not following the reply conventions, but I'm not a wikipedia editor and I feel this is rather urgent. Erik, can you clarify what you meant by "process of outing you." Because Don and his people seem to be taking this as evidence that I, Erik Kraft, am the person they are mad at. Don has posted my personal information, including address and phone number, on his forum on his personal site and I'm extremely disturbed. Thanks.

Just something weird I've noticed about this whole thing; the Transformer's wiki pulls absolutely no punches about detailing Don's history with wikipedia and uses the same image that used to be on his article here (I agree it was unflattering but until I realized he had issues I thought it was charmingly hammy). As near as I can tell, it's not like the editors there are fans from his website and therefore given license by him. I'm assuming he cares less because it's a lesser know website, but still... they are pretty scathing. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Millahnna, please do not get involved with any kind of comment. This is obviously a serious matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Urgent problem: someone thinks I'm you and is extremely mad at you

Hello,

I've received two calls in the past hour from a person named Don. He is extremely upset with the wikipedia editor named Erik and has somehow googled his way to me. My name is Erik Kraft and he found my phone number and address. He won't tell me how he found my information. He refuses to believe I'm not the wikipedia editor Erik and is making weird threats. He won't even tell me what article he's so upset about; he is so convinced I'm the person he's mad at that he thinks I'm playing dumb. Can you help fill me in? Please get in touch ASAP. And anything you can do to cool off this Don guy would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Erik

It might be a bit late, but do you want me to frag the old revisions of your user page? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello--this is Erik Kraft writing again. Thank you for the offer, but I'm not sure what this means--I'm not the wikipedia user Erik and I don't have a user page. This is the whole problem. I'd appreciate the wikipedia editor Erik coming forward to clarify things. I've never been so confused about something in my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.177.43.18 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Mr. Kraft. I was actually talking to Erik (the user here), as I think some of his personal details led the frequenters of an internet message board to you, and wiping them would be in everyone's best interest. I recommend you ignore the calls; unfortunately you've been wrongly targeted by an internet lynching mob for having details in common with this user. If harassment persists, contacting your local law enforcement may be your best bet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I really appreciate your efforts to help, and yes, I'm talking to the Chicago police right now. This is insane. I really hope Erik will chime in and clarify things, and whatever else, Erik, please stop whatever edit war is going on with Don. It is having extremely disturbing real-life implications for me, and I hope you'll agree that it's really not worth it.

The "war" was over an image of Don that was put on the article about him. It wasn't a copyrighted image or anything (though Don is claiming it is), and Don has been trying to get it removed from the article because, admittedly, it does look a little silly. Ironically enough, the picture has already been removed for other reasons entirely. So, there's nothing left to actually war about and User Erik hasn't been doing anything else. So i'm not sure what other help Wikipedia will be able to offer you in this matter. I do think the police would be your best bet, especially when you have the guy's full name. It makes it rather easy. Silverseren^C 17:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

From Erik Kraft--Yes, I've been able to piece this together over the past couple hours--thanks for confirming the details. I'm not so much worried about Don as his minions. On his personal forum, he concluded his initial message with "Find Erik." Chilling. At the same time, he is trying to cover himself by saying "Don't do anything illegal." Here is the thread: http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=33622 He is also actively deleting messages from the forum, so I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thread disappears. I'd be glad if it did, but the problem remains that he posted my address and phone number to his followers, and who knows what one of them might do. Ugh, what a nightmare.

Even though i'm not involved in this and am a random user that's just been watching what's going on... :P I must say that i'm sorry you got dragged into this. In a way, I wish Don and his minions were better hackers than they apparently are, or at least good enough to find the right address. But, I suppose that would be giving too much credit. I hope that the police are able to sort this out for you and no negative repercussions result from it. Again, sorry you got dragged into this ridiculous mess. Silverseren^C 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got in tonight. Mr. Kraft, I am very sorry that you got involved in this. Murphy's behavior is despicable, and please feel free to take whatever action is necessary. He has a history of skirting harassment advocating by including a disclaimer. Like Silver seren said, it has nothing to do with edit warring. Murphy despises any edit to his article. He thinks I am you because we are from the same area, I think, but I have no idea how your specific name got listed. I will be contacting Jimmy Wales, who knows about Murphy's behavior and has personally called him. A second phone call is probably in order. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh man Erik, I really appreciate it. This has been such a bizarre and scary episode, but it's good to know that the decent people here seem to far outnumber the trolls. It's truly unbelievable to go through this guy's message board and see how he sics his anonymous thugs on people for the slightest perceived offenses. Erik.kraft (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

New ANI

I've started a new ANI section about the situation, as it has gone far beyond just the incident with the photo. I've asked the community to see if we can do anything to help out this guy named Erik (that's what i'm going to call you). I just wanted to inform you about this, User Erik (and that's what i'm going to call you, to differentiate). Silverseren^C 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm grateful to you for doing this--and I've gone ahead and created a wikipedia account (erik.kraft) so that it doesn't seem like I'm trying to hide behind anonymity. Which is clearly not possible anyway. Feel free to refer to me as erik.kraft going forward. I'll be following the ANI page and will post further details as I have them. And I even just learned to sign my posts: --> Erik.kraft (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Kraft, please do not get involved unless absolutely necessary; see WP:DENY. You may also want to read WP:OTRS. I have contacted Mr. Wales about the situation concerning Murphy. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Orci's Posts in Don Murphy's message board

Hi. About this edit you made, I have to disagree. The rule about forums not being reliable sources refers to posts in forums made by regular joes. The case in question is one of the movie writers posting in one of the movie's producers' forum. It should be noted that MANY of other bits of information in these articles are sourced by other of these posts. There's particularly a whole load of them sourced by the numerous "Hey Roberto" Q&A's conducted in these forums, to which Orci replied. Also illustrative of the point could be the also abundant affirmations sourced by Michael Bay's posts in his own forum, ShootForTheEdit. --uKER (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I don't get it

Your talk page's heading says people shouldn't contact you here regarding "the situation" but it doesn't say anything about what situation you're talking about. In any case, I don't have any other means of contacting you so, well... Now, what did your reply mean? Are you OK with me restoring the source in the Transformers article then? Perpahs forums not being citable sources requires a noted exception being movie insiders posting in reputable forums. --uKER (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're leaving?

This...makes me rather sad. I wish this situation hadn't happen and I do sorta feel like you're letting him win. :( Perhaps you'll return someday? I can only hope. Silverseren^C 23:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I can only second Silver seren's thoughts. There's no logic in stopping to do what you like because a random someone decided to throw a fit at you. Hope to see you back around soon. --uKER (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. I'm disappointed at the actions of Murphy for starting the whole fiasco, and you definitely do deserve a break. As always, if you have any pages you want me to watch for you, let me know. I look forward to your return. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're leaving man. I understand how annoying it can get with Don Vito Murphy acting like a Wiki-bitch and complaining when anyone does anything about him. Take some time off, clear your mind and hopefully you'll be back (I hope). Remember...we'll have lots of work to do for the next Batman installment. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea. I'm truly sorry to hear this, but it's your decision. I'd like to thank you for everything you've done, especially your advice in regards to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and the road to FA. All the best, --The Taerkasten (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand a bit more now. This should not have happened, it's highly unjust. Again, I respect your decision, and feel free to return when you are ready.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WT...go on vacation and all hell breaks loose? :-( Sorry to see you go, though can't say I blame you with that kind of psychosis running around. Hopefully just a short break and not permanent. Will certainly miss you! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

After dealing with harassment from Don Murphy and his goons for the past two days, I can appreciate why wikipedia user Erik would want nothing further to do with this mess. At the same time, I really wish he would have clarified why he talked about being "outed" both here and on the admin thread--all that did was wave a red flag in the face of Don and his goons and make them think they had found the right target in me, Erik Kraft, a third party who had nothing to do with any of this until receiving a call from Don Murphy Saturday. No one was outed except for me, and I'm the one who's had to deal with extremely scary real-life repercussions. Erik.kraft (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news

• In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Death Race Prequel VS. Remake

I'm sorry If I've raised a controversy on wikipedia but according to writer/director Paul W.S. Anderson, the film Death Race is prequel and not a remake. I am not a registered user on Wikipedia, nor do I intend to be, but saw that it said remake and I felt compelled to correct. I don't know how to cite the source but if someone would be willing to watch the film's DVD commentary, that is where it can be confirmed. For the longest time I thought someone kept changing it just to mess with me, but it was the people at Wikipedia the whole time. I would appreciate if you could verify this and insure that that the article informs readers the film is actually a prequel and not a remake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.211.200 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Images

Am I the only one that thinks all of these images are going to end up having to go under an image for deletion discussion? Centpacrr doesn't seem to really understand the requirements of non-free images or what "critical commentary" actually means. I get the feeling that they are not going to budge on this topic and it's going to force all of the images to go under individual review - which is probably the worst thing for Centpacrr, since the non-free media deletionists are usually pretty happy to excise images and the like when they fail to acquire the appropriate criteria. BTW, welcome back. Great way to get your feet wet again. :P  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think each image has a different logic behind it, but a lot of them are related to unnecessarily illustrating the storyline. If we went to WP:FFD, I would rather approach each image separately. There are two difficulties here: explanation of tacit knowledge of using non-free content in film articles (based on our years of editing) and emotional investment in one's own work. We would all get defensive if our own work was being criticized, so it is hard to tell if a defensive editor would ever rationally disagree with any outside argument. If there is consensus to delete images, he obviously will not be happy. Maybe we should see what we can add to the article content-wise. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a really good source to use for the article, although I did not see anything useful for justifying images. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to welcome you back. Not sure how active you're going to be, but as always, you provide valid and helpful points for discussions. If you're enjoying this non-free image discussion quite a bit, and want a challenge, consider taking a look at the non-free spotlight listing. Some progress has been made in your absence, but there's still some distance to go. It's getting to the point where I'm going to just have to remove the images as I'm the only one that commented on them (even though I left messages on the talk pages of all of the articles). If you're not interested, no worries, I know there is no joy in removing non-free images. Again, welcome back, and hopefully this isn't just temporary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My activity will be light. I use the computer all day at work, so when I'm done for the day, I do not care to be in front of the computer anymore. I will participate in discussions in a limited fashion for now. I cannot make any promises about image discussions, especially the fun they bring. I'll focus on the current discussion for now to see if we cannot find a way to accommodate images in the partially-developed article. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

An ANI thread you may wish to read

See here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn you!

I hung out around you too much. Even these days, every time I want to use a film article as an example of anything, guess which one it is. Yeah, you got it :)

It is a good article. And it's good to see you around again.

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs)

Appreciate that you use that article as an example! :) You should check out the Featured Articles by Steve, Nehrams2020, and David Fuchs, too; they are better in different ways. For example, American Beauty is strong on themes, the Featured Star Trek films are strong on production, and articles like Tropic Thunder and Little Miss Sunshine do well with a mix of free and non-free images. I don't quite feel back yet; I kind of found other hobbies, and it's hard to fit Wikipedia back in. Glad to see you're still around and editing away! Erik (talk | contribs) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"We do not have time for your damned hobbies, sir!" Always good to do stuff outside of Wikipedia, but we're glad to have you back in whatever capacity you choose to serve :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You opinion on..

Hi Erik. Again thanks for your Saw VI review. About a cast list/casting section [on Saw 3D in the third paragraph of the Casting section], what is your valued opinion on how I have added returning cast/characters and new cast/characters that don't have any additional casting tidbits to be included (at this time)? Is it necessary for prose or list? Thanks. Mike Allen 06:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll break down the "Casting" section by paragraph. I think that the first paragraph will not be necessary by the film's release, except for the tidbit about when casting began. In the second paragraph, I'm not sure if the quote about Bell will stand the test of time either, especially when the plot summary will detail the character's involvement. In the third paragraph, the tidbits about the Scream Queens winner and Bennington should be kept in prose (although we don't need to mention that the trailer revealed his appearance). The other names would benefit from being in list form, I think. My personal experience is that the so-called time of when someone was cast should work into the flow of development information. It's not interesting to say that Character A was cast in January, Character B was cast in March, Character C was cast in April, etc. For example, at Black Swan (film), I did indicate when Portman and Kunis got involved, but I didn't write into prose that Sebastian Stan was revealed in December 2009 to be in the film. My suggestion here is a list or even to consider a table approach where the third column could be a "Previous appearance" field. I think it is a detail that is pertinent since there is a kind of reunion of characters in this film. (Of course, for new characters, you don't have to put anything -- gray out the cell.) We can exercise editorial discretion with details of a topic, and I don't think anyone will miss the prose of the step-by-step casting process. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I took the table route. Check it out. We'll find out if it's well received or not.. I think it's helpful and better to understand. I'll work on the other casting bits too. Mike Allen 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome...

...back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Hope you are doing well. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 22:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

x 2. Good to see you back around, Erik. Skomorokh 08:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pleased, too ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Same as above. Regards, Dekkappai (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's good to have you back. --The Taerkasten (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, Erik! It is great to have you back. --Dan Dassow (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you back :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: AfD notification

Thanks for the warning, also welcome back! --TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Airborne Quotes

Yeah, those quotes were absolutely terrible. I was going to try to fix them, but it was probably best to just straight-up delete them. I'm going to work on that page a lot more, so if you're also a fan of Airborne, feel free to help out or make suggestions. BrianSfinasSSI (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it

inre http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers_film_project&action=history I was just about to do the same thing. Thanks for the assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We'll see how the format works out. I just want to avoid any indication of a so-called guarantee. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... there are no guarantees... but as most arguments were about the semblance to an article "about" a finished film, that needed to be addressed. And since no one else had done it, I decided to back up my opinion with action. I do not expect many who previously opined redirect to change their minds, but can only hope a closer sees that such concerns are being adressed. Again, thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the AfD is that keepers get to play show-and-tell where redirecters and mergers cannot do the same without removing the template. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

... and too, redirecters and mergers rarely have any inclination to edit in any manner that would address their preconceptions... which is why even a little assist is greatly apreciated. Thank you. Being able to serve the readers with edits such as these does give me a certain satisfaction. I look at them when I need a reminder that things can get better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

NFF

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Proposed ammendment to WP:NFF. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter

The July 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hobbit (2012 film)

I was just thinking that this article would also benefit from a similar format currently being used by the The Avengers film project as it is another future project that has yet to begin production and seems to have gone into development hell.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about that! Sure, it sounds like a good idea. Obviously, we should give it similar treatment (e.g., no infobox) and also rename it to encompass the two films being planned. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done a quick job re-formatting, though I'm not sure what a good new article title would be. I'm not crazy about The Avengers film project, and we're pretty much without precedent here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the name either but The Hobbit film project is better fitting than "The Hobbit (2012 film)".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll work with that. Want to go ahead and move? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, though I doubt this will go over well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Precedent?

Hi Erik! I am fully understanding of your concerns, but we do have a few precedents with which to work: Category:Upcoming films A while back, the extended coverage over many years of Goldie Hawn's wish/intent/plans to make and direct her own film resulted in an editor creating Ashes to Ashes (2010 film) wich was taken to an AFD similar to the one for Avengers (2012 film). And at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashes to Ashes (2010 film). It was another instance where a topic was seen to meet to GNG, and style and name and perception were the greatest concerns... just as with Avengers. My editing the article during that AFD resulted in its meeting those concerns and resulted in a keep per consensus of a "film-related" non-film. The article is at Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn film project), and so... we do have a precedent for careful use of film style templates, but only if it made very clear in the lede that such articles are NOT about made films... and [[Category:Upcoming films]] was used. Wouldn't that cat be appropriate for Avengers? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ashes to Ashes is the perfect example of an article that should have been deleted. I'm sorry to see that it was kept. Clearly, the article portrays a constant expectancy of something tangible and violates the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL with its yearning. Information about this project should have been placed in a concise paragraph on Hawn's article since it was discussed because of her only. Why should this be precedent? A minimal example like this should absolutely conform to WP:NFF. A more applicable example would be Watchmen's development history if the film never actually got made. My impression is that you don't want to apply WP:NFF at all. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. A2A acts as a decent example that a non-film, per notability standards can be just as notable as a made-film. It is an example of film-related article about a non-film that survived on its merits through meeting the GNG and being found, per policy and guideline, as worthy of note. I referred to it here only to show that with judicious use, a film template for a film topic, even if a non-film, can work and create a presentable article, and also to emphasize that a proper lede, and its underscoring of not-yet-a-film, does not imply that something IS a film. But if the mandate is that the film infobox is to be used ONLY on released films, then it's time to create a new infobox design for use on non-films.

As for me and NFF. Heck yes, I apply it... but I don't treat NFF as if it were imutable policy. I have hundreds of times supported delete for film-related "topics" that failed meeting the GNG... whether made, released, in-production, or never made. I see NFF as a guide that is set in place, like all notability guides, to encourage diligent searches for sources in determing the notability or lack for a "topic" (in this case unmade/unreleased films), as it is through meeting or not meeting of the GNG that notability or lack is determined for any topic. If a topic is about a "made film", then naturally WP:NF is used as a guide. If a an article is about a "film-in-production" or "not yet released", then NFF is used as a guide. But where we seem to disagree, is in that neither of these guidelines are iron-clad rules, NFF as worded does not deal with topics (film) unless they are or were in some state of production. That lack forgets that per policy, future events are allowed, and forgets that notability is found through a topic's coverage meeting WP:GNG, and not in the topic itself. NFF needs a teeny tweak to bring it in line with policy. It needs to be expanded to acknowledge that notability can exist in other circumstances than the ones currently therein described, for considerations of exceptions (if notable) are encouraged by all guidelines... and as the guideline encouraged exceptions exist, let's deal with their presentation for our readers, rather than commenting they should be deleted even though they were found notable.

And of course, guideline does not overrule policy. When the two are ever in conflict, policy is supposed to take precedent. As policy specifically states that it is appropriate to report on well-sourced and notable "future" events, and policy gives careful instruction and caution on how it is done... it needs be clear that NFF is not intended to contravene policy, but that as with any guideline, its use is mutually supportive of policy and is not intended to overrule policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please preview! :P Let's focus our comments at WT:NF. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes... there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what to think anymore about what applies or works. This is me. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That is how I feel sometimes too. Superb GIF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

From Scanners. :) BTW, I am thinking that in regard to unproduced films, it may be worthwhile to have some historical articles where a failed production is especially reported in retrospect. For example, this book can do that. The challenge with having a project article is that it can float between history and reality; there are a few projects out there that people keep saying they'll make, and the tone is naturally forward-looking. Attempted film adaptations of works by Arthur C. Clarke, especially, may be worth a look. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea... as unmade films set in historical context, specially for unmade projects that have received scholarly attention, is quite worthy. No doubt some of those in that and similar books have will have received enough attention to merit an individual stand-alone rather, than being a footnote or sidebar in a different article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFILM

Hi Erik. Quick question: Hypothetically, a film stub is up for deletion under concerns of "notability". This film stub is completely reliably sourced, and the film is shown to pass WP:NOTFILM under multiple criteria, including being a significant film in the career of multiple "notable" personnel, and winning an award in the major film ceremony covering the genre. It's a foreign-language film, and the amount of coverage in the sourcing available online-- while reliable-- is said not to meet GNG. Is it "notable" or not? Dekkappai (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. I've largely worked with mainstream films and have rarely referenced WP:NF other than WP:NFF. I saw your message at WT:NF and will watch the discussion, but I don't know if I have anything to contribute. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My point though: Films pass NOTFILM multiple times-- award-winners (the ceremony is called the "Academy Awards of Pink" by mainstream, reliable sources), significant works in the careers of notable filmmakers, etc.-- but GNG is the only valid reason cited by the deletes. (Invalid reasons include, "eww, it's porn"-- which it is not, and that the ceremony is not major-- multiple reliable sources say it is). Discounting the language and the genre, this should have a major impact on film articles-- I'd guestimate 95% of US film articles have weaker claim to "notability" and less reliable sourcing. (These articles are sourced by P*G, the main journal covering the genre for over 20 years and cited as such by reliable sources, and by the Japanese Ministry of Education.) Dekkappai (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I think you should be able to answer it: If an article on a film which easily passes NOTFILM but not GNG is deleted, what is the purpose of NOTFILM? (I've asked the question more verbosely at the page if you want to answer there... or not ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

After 3 failed FA's, many PR's, and more than two years of work, I'm now setting my sights on FA for this article. I'm not sure if there's anything left to do. I might work on a subarticle on Interpretations, I left some references on the talk page, but the main focus now is the main article for FA. Should I get another PR first? I don't want number 4 to be another failed FA. --The Taerkasten (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Taerkast. It looks like it has been some time since the last FA nomination, so it depends on if you feel it has changed substantially since then. I'm also not seeing a lot of feedback in the peer reviews, either (and I personally do not find peer reviews useful). I would instead recommend looking at recent Featured Articles of films and seeing which editors provided a lot of useful comments and asking them what they think it takes to make the article Featured. My own approach is that I am always reluctant to nominate an article until I can vet all good resources. For example, what keeps me back from nominating The Fountain is being unable to access a Cinefex article to include. I don't know the extent of your research with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but people (including me) may be reluctant to consider it "comprehensive" per FA criteria if sources like I posted here were not vetted. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Erik. I know it's not quite there yet, but it will get there, eventually. There's always work to be done. A Google Scholar search may also turn up some useful refs--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

FLC nomination

Erik, JuneGloom07 Talk? , Courcelles (talk) and I nominated the article List of awards and nominations received by Up in the Air for FLC. This list is a child article to Up in the Air (film). I would appreciate your considered comments regarding the nomination on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Up in the Air/archive1. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erik; thanks for reviewing this FLC. Can you revisit it to ensure that your concerns have been resolved, and if possible, declare whether you support, oppose or are neutral toward the list's promotion to FL status? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

about questionable Dragon Hunters (film) edits

On what grounds did u reverted the changes to that article? Was it backed by your personal knowledge of that film producing? Please tag the article for revision next time prior to reverting anyones edits. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulterior19802005 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ulterior. There is a user, Pricer1980 (talk · contribs), who has a history of adding false information to film articles. The editor made this edit that Legend of the Guardians was a BBC film, which is not true. So that person's edits are suspect, and I'm trying to follow up on them. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Zombie

Ah! Thanks Erik, I didn't catch that. This will help out a lot! Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply on doubt

Hi there ERIK, VASCO from Portugal,

about your question, well, maybe i won't be of much help my friend. I don't edit in movie stuff, so i'll take your "gut feeling" on that one. Regarding my experiences with Arbero fellow, all i can say is the following:

He, as ZOMBIE433, never writes summaries - well almost never - and i did message him in the past, but merely on aesthetic technicalities, he was not violating any wiki-rule. The only thing that seemed strange was that he answered, saying that he agreed with me, then went back to doing the exact opposite (another example of this behaviour could be find in User:Filipão); i also can see, from our "wiki-clock", that he has not replied to your message, and is active as of NOW in the site. I find that to be not very polite, but, to each his own...

All in all, all i can say is this: as far as his contributions to the movie articles, i have no opinion, but if you say he's done wrong stuff, i will agree with you. In soccer articles, i will never get along with him, but he his not a vandal, no sir (at least in football). Take care, wished i could be of more help - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspected that. The edits seem okay upon further investigation. Just that I've dealt with two editors being indefinitely blocked this month, and I'm wary of them using sockpuppets. Thanks for your reply! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fight Club

The source I have added Germany is from the film's Internet Movie Database. Here is the link [4]. --Arbero 31 August 2010, 18:50.

IMDb is a database, so it lists all entities indiscriminately. Any German involvement with Fight Club is minimal, so we cannot say that the film was an American-German co-production. No reliable sources that discuss the film in context talk about German involvement. IMDb also classifies Fight Club as a drama film, a mystery film, and a thriller film, where reliable sources discussing the film in depth have not assigned such genre labels. Whenever we reference IMDb to flesh out the film infobox, we have to remember that it lists indiscriminately. We have to make the judgment call about a film's nationality based on detailed context even if its IMDb page can sometimes list multiple countries. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, glad we could talk through. Thanks a lot! --Arbero 31 August 2010, 19:00.

WP:FILMS August 2010 Newsletter

The August 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

I started a discussion about this month's election that I'd like to get started in the next few days. Please comment there so the nomination period can be initiated quickly. By the way, I removed your name from the Signpost mailing list back during your retirement, if you're interested in getting that again, you'll need to readd your name. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

scene by scene breakdowns

Our guidelines don't offer a place for a section that gives a scene by scene breakdown of a film. For some important films that we're trying to cover completely, it seems that would be as useful as anything else we offer. I don't know of any source of scene breakdowns of important films either. I'm not sure, but I think some readers might find it valuable. Do you have a strong opinion either way? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "scene by scene breakdown"? My first thought was the shower scene for Psycho (1960 film), which has its own section. Do you mean the breakdown of multiple scenes in a single film? I'm not sure how many films would have numerous "famous" scenes. Something like American Beauty (film) tends to point out this scene and that scene in its critical analysis of a certain topic. It would help to use some examples, especially if you are looking for real-world context for each of numerous scenes. I remember when I did research briefly on Jaws (film) that there were some scenes that were broken down. There's a lot of material locked up in academic publications that are hard to include in film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

By scene by scene breakdown, I mean a listing of each scene with a brief description of the action, and possibly running time. I don't mean a shot by shot breakdown, which would show each shot. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured that was what you meant. If it is just a brief description of each scene, then how does it comply with WP:PLOT? A brief description of every scene would add up to more than an article's normal plot summary. When you say "each scene", do you mean each of every scene in a film or each of a certain set of scenes? I'm not understanding the goal of the breakdown when you haven't mentioned real-world context in relation to the scenes. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Does not comply, which is why I'm bringing it up. I'm talking about a separate section in a film article. The purpose would be to offer reference material about the film. For some major films that deserve the full treatment, I sometimes feel like this is what the readers would like. Many questions about a film are not answered by a summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a policy-level problem, then, if we're not going to have real-world context for what is essentially a textual substitute to watching the film. For fictional topics, we provide a general summary of in-universe background information to serve as part of the larger coverage. This does not mean we cannot detail certain scenes when they are relevant. Some coverage will specifically analyze a scene, and it would definitely benefit the reader to know what happens in-universe in that scene before reading the analysis. However, I can't agree with an indiscriminate list of scenes from a film on the basis of its fame. If it is famous, then surely its key scenes will be properly analyzed. Scene descriptions ought to hinge on the availability of independent coverage analyzing them. Not the other way around, where all scenes are detailed, and only part of them have coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about anything indiscriminate. I'm talking about completeness. I also am not talking about analysis any more than a plot summary is analysis. Neither am I talking about something that replaces watching a film. However, a list of each scene and its action answers questions about a film that a researcher might be interested in. A plot summary as we've defined it can't do the same job, because there's no confidence that the summary organizes the material according to film order. So for that reason a breakdown offers information about a film that a plot summary cannot. That means that it has value beyond what a film article currently could. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Indiscriminate and complete are not mutually exclusive. For example, a complete cast list in a film article is indiscriminate. If researchers wanted to analyze a film scene by scene, they would watch the film, which will provide more detail than a textual description ever will, especially when we have to comply with policy to keep the description basic. I think we have different perceptions about what purpose a film article serves. At the most basic, I think we can agree that the article serves to inform. However, your proposal suggest treating the film articles as a platform for additional research. I cannot see that the same way. Film articles ought to report on research when it exists. To me, a film article is an evolving end result summarizing existing coverage. If there are readers that use film articles to some end, great, but it is not our explicit goal to accomplish that. You're talking about the breakdown applying to major films that "deserve the full treatment", but these films already do get the full treatment if they're significant enough. It's just rare to recover real critical analysis from academic publications; most of us are not that advanced in research. I'd rather see an effort to recover that analysis than provide a breakdown as if that analysis was not available. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not really trying to propose anything. I'm interested in your thoughts. I don't disagree with what you're saying here, but it doesn't really make sense to say that the usefulness of the articles is irrelevant. Encyclopedias are made to be useful sources of information and they have no other function. And you are right, too, that there is room to "recover real critical analysis."

However, I think too much is made of a certain distinction. A report of what an article says is not different from a report of the content of a movie. Both are forms of research by the Wikipedia editor. No amount of rationalization alters the fact that the editor found the article, summarized the article, cited the article. In the first case, we agree that it's not OR because supposedly we simply repeat what someone else already said. However, that's what a summary of a movie is, too -- a repetition of a text given in a certain form that is recognizable and reviewable for accuracy. I also don't think it is cognizant of the uses of Wikipedia to say that if someone wants to know what's in the movie they can just watch it. By that standard we don't need to do any articles about anything. Apparently, we are offering a resource or repository of knowledge. So when we consider, what are the facts of the matter concerning film X, of course we want to know the names of the actors, but we find that information by looking for it. Saying the order of the scenes and their content is another fact of the matter about a film, and it has value. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right that we all make judgment calls when we write film articles, whether we're adding a plot summary or a section about the film's production. There are limits to these judgment calls, though. I've tried my hand at reporting critical analysis when I am able to research it successfully, and it's an enormous challenge to decipher the analysis sometimes. It's a judgment call that is high in complexity, typically requiring an education similar to the academic's. It's possible to report analysis to the general readership, but there must be an ability to understand that analysis and then distill it into its key points for presentation. For plot summaries, the challenge is creative complexity. It is easy to provide a plot summary for a run-of-the-mill rom com, but it is not easy to provide one for a David Lynch film. Like reporting key points from an academic publications, there is a challenge in reporting key events from a film. While we try to be basic in describing the film, there are still underlying thematic preconceptions that we all have, generally the dramatic structure. With films as creative works, how can one truly objectify art? I think that is the rationale behind WP:PSTS, to limit our amateur attempts to describe fictional works on our own. Plot summaries in film articles, especially of new films, are constantly, constantly changing, and it's amazing how many different perspectives can be had on a marginally complex film. To get to the point, I'm actually open to a tighter word count of plot summaries because a more general summary would be more agreed-upon by all. A scene by scene breakdown would be much more detailed, obviously, and by extent, more disagreeable in terms of content accuracy. This assessment is with the policies being put aside, of course. There are limits to what Wikipedia can offer the reader. It cannot list all the cast and crew members, it cannot sample every critic's opinion, and it cannot go into such detail about scenes without context. I'm not sure it's realistic to say that the breakdown would benefit researchers. Because we're amateurs using our own general preconceptions to write the scenes, can we truly capture what a researcher would be looking for? Researchers are going to have their own specialist knowledge (which we cannot claim to have; we defer to reliable sources outside ourselves) that they bring to the table, so they will take different approaches to the scenes. Technical setup may be analyzed, or thematic setup may be analyzed; these cannot be captured in a write-up of a scene. Mere actions are only part of it all. Pardon my wall of text; the topic is an interesting one to chew on. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a complicated response. In comparing a plot summary and a scene breakdown, I think the reality is that the summary will be more of an interpretation. So which is truer to the objectives? 2. I don't accept the amateur / non-amateur distinction as one that creates a value difference. (or do you mean amateur in its original meaning -- a lover of...?) --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a very tight summary is less interpretative because it contains only the broad strokes of a story. It's also easily cited; one can use Allmovie and other sources to capture the broad strokes with ease. Film articles' plot summaries are a bit more detailed than many references would reveal, unless the film is thoroughly covered in the chapter of a book (such as one about a director and his films). It's probably not quite accurate to say that the breakdown in itself is interpretative. I mean to say that when more details are included, it would likely lead to investigating the reasoning behind details, especially people reacting to one another and making certain decisions. I'm not convinced of the predicted payoff, and I think that breakdowns would be more equated to lengthier plot summaries. I personally find summaries more supplementary than complementary; most films will be available forever. It's rarer to be able to tell the story behind the film since we work together otherwise disparate references. For what it's worth, on a similar note, comic books and TV shows in the past tended to have Wikipedia articles with a lot of in-universe detail. When the detail was cut down, a lot of Wikias were created to be repositories for these details. I don't know how strongly you feel about the breakdown, but maybe it's worth a Film Wikia that goes into the level of detail you had in mind? I haven't expected Wikipedia to refresh my memory about what happens in a TV show's episode. I frequented Lostpedia a lot when the show was on air, for example. Maybe some kind of Cutting Room Wikia for films in general? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I didn't say a breakdown is interpretive. I said a summary is more interpretive. Why? Because summarizing requires selecting. A complete scene breakdown (reducing each scene to its action in about the size of a tweet) doesn't require editorial selection; all the scenes are in. The speculation about motivation that you posit would be equally unwelcome as it is in summaries. Summaries are of questionable value because they are incomplete. So, which form is more useful to the readers? Summaries, because they necessitate a level of selection on the part of the editor, are not useful for someone who simply wants a neutral recounting of the film, nor to someone who wants an analysis of the film. At least a breakdown is a reliable ordering of the scenes. (A further benefit: it would allow readers to avoid spoilers.) Clearly some would object for good reasons and bad. That they require interpretation is not one of them, any more than a citation from book is an interpretation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open

The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagination (film)

The nominator dropped the ball on this one big time. Not only was his flawed nomination based upon totally inapplicable criteria, but if he had done even a minimal before, he would have found sources in spades... juat as I have.[5] I voted speedy close at the AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I voted a regular "keep" because the article did not quite reflect full-fledged notability. It's not like an editor put Fight Club (film) up for AFD; I'd speedy keep that! :) Anyway, nice find of sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Four (Film) Many thanks for your message, EriK. Happy to hold fire until the film comes out. Then let someone else put it on. LOL! best wishes, JLang42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang42 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

IMDB

Hi Erik, sticky prods are for unsourced articles not poorly sourced ones. It takes a reliable source to remove a valid sticky prod, but it only takes a link that supports something about the subject to prevent an article being tagged in the first place. In the recent RFC I didn't quite get consensus to broaden sticky prods to articles "sourced" from Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn and Utube - IMHO all rather more worrying than IMDB. ϢereSpielChequers 19:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Loose Change (film)

Hi. I'm not happy with the structure and layout of this article, as it doesn't pretend to follow or abide by MOS:FILMS. I don't want my own opinion on this matter interfering with my judgment as to whether the article should pass or fail GA, so if you get a chance, could you very briefly comment on the layout? I would like your opinion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Men: First Class (film project)

I agree and disagree. We do need to perhaps set a clearer standard as to how persisitant ongoing coverage of a film topic might merit an article if there is too much sourced content for a decent merge. As NFF does allow consideration of rare exceptions, we can perhaps guide what qualifies as an exception so as to not open the floodgates. Like yourself, I do not wish a flood of minimal film project articles... but I do not expect a flood even after the very few examples that currently exist per consensus as exceptions to NFF. However, and in accepting that there ARE exceptions, I think it best to draw a clearer line in the sand. For instance, I do not think anyone would doubt the notability of the article The Hobbit film project, and it has not even reached the pre-production stage. It is the "topic" which has exceeded guideline requirements to be "wirthy of note". And we both recall the recent discussions about The Avengers film project. I think some preparation now will better guide the future. Shall we discuss ideas? Or (chuckle) perhaps Project Film might avoid becoming involved in articles about non-films until they actually become films... and so let them stay or go based upon their own merits and WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the exceptions are going to be major blockbusters, and these are not exactly rare in their preparation. The plans themselves are directly based on the notability of underlying elements such as the source material or a well-known director. Why was The Avengers presented at Comic Con? The problem is that none of these shoehorned project articles have a sense of historicity. It's just discussions related to a can being kicked down the road. WP:GNG was badly applied to these plans for this reason until the excuse of making up history came to mind. Plans for a film are falsely called "enduring" as references are contemporary news headlines about the very intent of making it, each year. Headlines are being strung together to create an enduring topic. In addition, it is very easy to feed off what a studio reveals about its film and explode a merged section with detail, when if we truly want to treat a film project as history, we would not be so indiscriminate with details, especially when cast and crew are quoted about their anticipations. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You're correct... the proposed exceptions will likely be for the blockbusters because of the nature of who and what is involved. So I think we need pay close attention to span of coverage, as any topic, film or no, has to have more and enduring coverage beyond "recent" else run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. If there is not enough contextually and reliably sourced content to support a decently encyclopedic stand-alone, a merge to somewhere suitable will still be the decent alternative. But my own first exposure to a "project article" was not a blockbuster... or something touted by a major studio... nor something that could have been folded into a series article. You may remember Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn film project) from last year (not a big-budget major-studio blockbuster), which had (and still has) enduring coverage over many years as the project received coverage for Goldie's various attempts to get the project under weigh... with articles begginning in 1996 speaking of her intent,[6][7] and some as recently as last month ago where the film was still receiving coverage with yet another article speaking toward Goldie's hopes that it might yet get done.[8] Strangely, in the 2005 book Goldie Hawn and Kate Hudson the author specifically speaks about the film in past tense, stating it was already shot... in contrast to the 2006 50+: igniting a revolution to reinvent America which speaks toward her struggling to finance the film. Did some parts get shot? Does not seem so... but as a topic it has received enough coverage to satisfy the GNG, and even if not made, meets the "production is notable" caveat of NFF. So... what I am coming around to is the nature of the coverage.

The Hobbit film project has received a tremendous amount of coverage for an even more extended period of time than even some successful biggies. The nature of the project, the individuals involved, and the allowing instruction at NOT have given us one terrific article... about a "film project"... one well worth being of note... and one that is far from ever having its first actor cast. Would you wish it tossed as a violation of guideline in contravention to the allowing policy? Better perhaps... we might consider and offer it as a gleaming example of what it takes to become an allowable exception to NFF. My understanding is that when the two are in conflict, the edge is given to policy over guideline... so in acknowledging that exceptions are going to be proposed, all we might best do is make sure that whatever exceptions are proposed, these exceptions must themselves qualify as terrific examples of what an exception should be... and this through extensive coverage that is more than recent, and in in exceeding depth, so as to be seen as well worth note. Better to plan for the storm than curse the rain. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The support of Ashes to Ashes as its own article is what worries me. People having wanted to make it for a long time makes it an enduring topic? It's still an intangible topic and offers no article of value. Like I said at the AFD, we could just have mention of Ashes to Ashes in two sentences at her own article, and nothing is lost. If a film is finally realized, then the history of getting to production becomes much more relevant. My concern here is the level of indiscriminate detail being used to make the claim, "There's so much history to write about these plans for a film!" They're details that matter when they can be in relation to the end product, such as verifiable speculation about who the next villain could be. The "film project" disambiguation is a clumsy approach that I cannot see going any further. Instead, this two-pronged approach would work better: incubate and maintain a full-fledged film article, where there can be all these details, and based on that incubated article, have a merged summary section that includes only the salient details that would matter the most in retrospect. This way, we don't have to change an entire article's format; we have an article ready to go if filming starts, and if not, we have a section that is as close to a historical report of an unrealized project as we'll ever get. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Even as I was writing the above, and despite my being the defender of existance for the Ashes to Ashes article when it went through AFD last year, I have been giving consideration of myself doing a proper sourced merge to the Goldie Hawn article, and I do not think anyone will have reason to complain when I am finished. So let's take that "example" of a project article off the plate in this discussion... as in a few days or hours it will be mute.

Instead though, let's tackle the real dragon in its cave. Please go ahead and send The Hobbit film project to AFD or propose it for a several year Incubation and let's both see what happens. Either exceptions are allowed to exist per policy or guideline, or they are not. So we may as well take on the Godzilla of exceptions rather than quibble about the lessor. If a point is to be made about why NFF exists, and a consensus for future exceptions is to be established, THAT is the article that will shake things up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with the authentic sub-article for The Hobbit, though there could be a better disambiguation term than "film project". I'm saying that X-Men: First Class was sufficient in a merged section. Unfortunately, waving around these film project articles as a standard leads to stuff like Marvin the Martian (film project). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Any use of the term "film project" must be accompanied by sources that show "production itself notable per existing notability guideline as set by WP:NFF... and Marvin fails miserably. Oh, bless some newb for trying... but like any article that doesn't have souracble notability, Marvin is gonna go... no matter what the article's title is. Its use of film project in its title is no more or less important than any other type of title in a "topic" totaly unable show notability. But yes... we do need to better define what creates a per policy and guideline allowable exception, so that we have fewer premature attempts.

What different type of disambiguation term than "film project" might you suggest for topics that have proven themselves notable per policy and that mother of all sub notability guidelines... what type of disambiguation for topics that are NOT films? For if the use of the phrase "film project" for something that is not yet a film is such an anathema to Project Film, we need find another way to describe articles about such topics in the making/planning/creation stages, as long as such topics meet pertinent notability guidelines... so that the topics may themselves be judged for what they are, and not what they are not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:GNG should not be part of this discussion. WP:NFF is obviously addressing plans for possible films, so while we've thrown around the term "non-film", its use falsely indicates that WP:NFF no longer applies. When plans are reported, the ultimate outcome is obviously a film. If a film never results, we cannot go back and declare the reports of plans to be about the plans themselves. That would only actually happen with retrospective coverage. This is an unconventional set of "topics" here -- they're not places or objects or even concepts. We're essentially dealing with news reports anticipating the "creation" of a topic, and reports won't be held back just because a film may not be made. That would be news in itself anyway! So WP:GNG is not appropriately applicable in any sense; the subject-specific guideline for all things film (even plans for them) can actually deal with the reality of film-related topics. An old film not showing results in Google but nonetheless some kind of award winner is indicative of its offline notability. News reports of a planned film is not an enduring topic. So please don't act like plans for a film will actually have nothing to do with film itself. WP:GNG does not belong in the picture. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I put together an essay here: User:Erik/Planned films. I think we need to work with the topics of projects that have been in development and are still in development. These are the most difficult to gauge in terms of news reporting versus enduring notability apart from the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you won't lose your cool. I know I tend to lose mine, but I admire how you have not. The essay was an attempt to gather my thoughts regarding policies, guidelines, and the reality of the film industry. Like I had suggested to you in the past, it is worth finding articles of projects that were in development. Retrospective coverage of these will be more clear-cut, and the enduring notability will be less challenged. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe your BOLD revision to NFF, while made with good intentions, is an error as it strikes directly against policy. Though they often bump heads, when the two are in conflict, policy is to take precedent, not guideline. Your concern inre WP:NOTNEWS is fine, but the policy you cite is already in place to deal with future events docuented only with recent news articles. Your change will be seen by some as if enduring and persistant coverage of a topic over a many-years period can be ignored if the event has not yet happened, and this acts to contradict policy and existing guideline. Please consider reverting yourself while we hash this out, and perhaps we can speak more toward my suggestion that we create a sub-project to specifically deal with anticipated film events.[9] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's work with the two policies WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. The latter applies from the onset because the early coverage is announcement-related. Plans for a film are announced. A director is announced. The cast is announced. Obviously, these news reports cannot make up an article of enduring notability, and I think you agree with that. If a project was in development hell and was retrospectively noted for that, it would meet WP:CRYSTAL in having its own article. The problem is the gray area in between. Using Hancock (film) as an example, it was first announced in 2002. After several directors were attached, the final director was established in 2006. Let's assume the project fell through and there was no additional development. If we have an article like this in 2006 that mentions the previous directors, does that make it retrospective? Would we have "Hancock (film project)"? The "Development" section at the film article is written liberally to provide background information for the encyclopedic topic. If no film resulted, would we be as liberal with the coverage? After all, no production takes place, there is no response from critics nor audiences, and there is no critical analysis. I can understand retrospective coverage of projects that were in development, but it's messier when they are currently in development. If you want to apply WP:GNG, the topic has to be the project in development discussed in retrospect. None of the references that discuss ongoing development count because that topic is the film. It requires hindsight to say, okay, this was a noteworthy time because the planned film struggled through development for a while, here's what happened, blah, blah. This is not going to be accomplished for most films; you will not generally see significant coverage from multiple sources about that. If there are articles across so many years about a project in development, like The Hobbit, then the likelihood is greater that the changes will be covered retrospectively. If it's something like Ashes to Ashes, it just boils down to, "Oh, she's still trying to make it, full stop." Erik (talk | contribs) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Plans for a film are announced. A director is announced. The cast is announced. Obviously, these news reports cannot make up an article of enduring notability, and I think you agree with that." Yes... and no. If these events happened last week and received a brief flurry of coverage, WP:NOTNEWS deals with it soundly. If these events happened 5 years ago and have continued and persisitant critical commentary over an extended period of time, covering these and related events, then WP:CBALL deals with it. And we cannot dismiss WP:N's definitions of what makes something "worthy of note", nor WP:GNG's setting parameters for what constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources which may then allow the creation and sourcing of an encyclopedic article dealing with a specific topic. I hate bringing up that old saw NOTPAPER... but no matter what the topic is, if it can be handled and presented in a properly sourced and encyclopedic manner, and is not in violation of WP:NOT then why not indeed? Wikipedia has the potential to be much more than its paperbond brethren... much more comprehensive and much more detailed... not less. So why should we settle for less... or encourage less? Yes, the term "film project" grates on certain nerves, but its use was only a compromise to indicate that the topic being discussed was perhaps notable per policy and guideline, but did not represent a finished film. So as even you seem to grant that such as The Hobbit film project have established the independent notability through coverage in multiple relibale sources over an extended period of time... what would be the better title, indicative that it has achieved encyclopedic notability worthy of inclusion, but is not yet (if ever) a film? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And let's stop with Goldie already... we've come to terms on that and I'll be effecting a decent merge quite soon and take that stick away from you (chuckle) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's work with the time frame, then. We can agree that a single announcement will qualify as a news report. You say that if the project is in development over five years with news reports every so often, then it ought to be a topic of enduring notability. The topic at hand, though, is not a film, right? It is the project in development. You did not mention retrospective coverage for some reason. The occasional news report will be film-centric. The development is written with a resulting film in mind. Are you saying that when there is no film, these reports should instead really be about the project in development? Do you know what I mean by this distinction? If the notability of a project in development, it needs to be evidenced by retrospective coverage. News reports that happen in the heart of the development process write the progress as for the film. When we look back, a resource like this or this can show us the notable projects that were in development. We see that they are notable because the topic of the developed project, not the film, was directly discussed. Like I said, for projects currently in development, how do we distinct news reports writing for the anticipated film from coverage considering the project in retrospect?

There were two types of presentation before: stand-alone articles about completed films, and umbrella articles' sections about planned films. Introducing a third type of presentation, stand-alone articles about projects in development (with such varying histories), complicates the management of content. I can understand a well-explored history of a previously developed project, but I'm concerned this type of presentation is unclear in what warrants retrospective coverage, like my Hancock example. There were news reports here and there, but there was not a significant review of the development of the project even as the final director was attached. There will always be planned films lingering in the pipeline, and I'm concerned that just because there were two news reports a year apart or three news reports each a year apart means that it is no longer about the film but about the project in development. Believe me, when I started on WikiProject Films, I wrote my heart out about upcoming films, especially the superhero sort. An example is Black Panther (comics)#Live action. I'd present it more concisely now, and I think it can be accomplished with no meaning lost. It took a while to manage planned films in their appropriate sections since previously, articles were being created left and right whenever some kind of progress was made. The worst kind of article that I foresee for this third type of presentation is an article about a project in development with the studio or the filmmaker stringing the media along. For example, for Jurassic Park IV, it's basically that Joe Johnston keeps saying it will be made next year, and he says that every year. Same for Ant-Man (film) and Edgar Wright. It's one news report after another, despite them being spread out, and it's like, "Wait, what are we writing about again?" Such projects' baby steps of development will be covered in news reports because their keywords (Jurassic Park! superheroes!) are so attractive. It's not presentable as a topic of enduring notability.

The collection of news reports at a section works because it's a low-key presentation. It's accessible, and it doesn't play up an actual film. With project articles, it seems more likely that if a director says, "Yeah, we'll shoot this fall," bam, project article's now a film article on account of that. It's a less clear threshold, and I find that fluidity dangerous. It's easy to explain that when filming starts, we'll have an article for ages and ages hence, and before then, talk about the buildup in the umbrella article. To get into the nuances of how old a project must be and how much retrospective coverage warrants enduring notability is a tougher sell and would fall on deaf ears. That's why I mentioned Marvin the Martin; someone out there saw The Avengers and thought, I can write an article about the film as long as it's just a project! I'm waving it around because I'm concerned that's the future. I spent a long time with the future films department to manage that kind of content, and people understand the rollout that WP:NFF explains. Anyway, pardon the wall of text. This just goes back a long way for me, and I'd hate to see an influx of articles that are created in knee-jerk fashion on being under the guise of "projects". Erik (talk | contribs) 21:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cannot address a wall all at once. So... in addressing at the moment your concern as stated in the final sentence: ANY topic needs to be determinable as notable, else face deletion. If the subject matter is of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred, we are instructed by policy that any article attempting to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur must itself show decent and persistent enough coverage, as we all know that notability requires verifiable evidence. I do not believe there would be any "influx" under a "guise" of "projects", as any such topic would itself have to meet the same strict caveats toward notability and sourcing as any article, and per policies NOT and CBALL, the reporting of future events requires continued and persisitant critical commentary over an extended period of time, no matter HOW the article is titled. And on different note, could you far more briefly share your definition of "retrospective coverage" and how this definition refines or modifies the wording of WP:GNG? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And there is a big difference between a "news report" and "persisitant critical commentary over an extended period of time", so we need to acknowledge the difference. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)