User talk:Time Immemorial/Archive/2007/May
Pulp Fiction moves
editWhat on Earth is going on here? There's no need whatsoever for this page to move from Pulp Fiction, the last piece of discussion left consensus on it staying where it was, it's been moved back five times over the years, and you appear to have just requested to have it moved again. The archive links are in a big enough mess already without all this jumping about. Is there a particular reason you find the consensus title to be ambiguous? Chris Cunningham 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
geo-stubs
editHi TI - I see you've been adding {{geo-stub}} to quite a few articles. That's good and useful, but it would be even more useful if you could add th specific geo-stub for each country (almost every country now has its own separate geo-stub, almost all in the form CountryName-geo-stub, like {{Japan-geo-stub}} or {{SouthAfrica-geo-stub}}). As I said, what you're doing is a big help, but it'd save a little more work down the track if you could add the country too! Keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:Films Welcome
edit
Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for April has been published. May's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
- Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
- Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
- Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Lead section
editHi. I restored the three-paragraph lead to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, as this was not meant to be a reception section, but a lead summary of reception, themes, and influences. The reception section will be expanded on its own, as will music, themes, and influences. —Viriditas | Talk 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. I see you created this account at 00:12, 13 May 2007, [1] and you are already editing like you've been here for years. You must learn fast. Since you know so much, perhaps I should come to you in the future for questions about policy and guidelines. —Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've been here since 2004, so I'm familiar with how things work. See WP:LEAD. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines is derived from that guideline and does not override it in any way. Three to four paragraph leads are perfectly acceptable, and many film articles use them. Blade Runner is only one example. The style guideline gives a two paragraph lead as an example. It does not mean to imply that all leads should be two paragraphs. That's a subjective, literal interpretation on your part. If you were familiar with WP:LEAD you would see how silly that is. Furthermore, these are basic style guidelines, and they are applied to each article in a different way. I think you are misinterpreting the style guideline in a literal fashion, instead of seeing it as a basic approach to creating leads. Three to four paragraph leads are common and work well to inform the reader. I'm going to revert your changes. Although the lead can always use improvements (I just cut a lot from it) and I am more than willing to discuss this with you and reach a compromise, please do not continue to "reduce" the lead at this time. I've added a section to the Film project here. Please participate in that discussion. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I just cut some more from the lead. See the to do list on talk that you created. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted your edits again because they simply don't make any sense. Please take your concerns to the talk page before editing the lead section. If you have some references or content that you want to contribute, by all means do so, but please don't disrupt the article. —Viriditas | Talk 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not continue to disrupt the article. You just completely destroyed the lead section, adding casting information to production, removing reliably sourced information about Tarantino, and placing information out of context. This reminds me of another user named User:Arcayne who did the exact same thing to the lead section of Children of Men. —Viriditas | Talk 13:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- You don't appear to understand what you are editing. I politely asked you to take your concerns to the talk page, and instead you destroyed the lead section and removed reliably sourced information. I'm afraid this type of editing behavior is entirely disruptive and serves no useful purpose. Please stop. —Viriditas | Talk 13:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I asked you to explain your edits on the talk page. Please do so. Instead you have acccused me of "stalking" you. —Viriditas | Talk 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your edits to the lead section and obsession with adding spoiler tags to a film from 1966 is highly problematic. —Viriditas | Talk 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I asked you to explain your edits on the talk page. Please do so. Instead you have acccused me of "stalking" you. —Viriditas | Talk 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- You don't appear to understand what you are editing. I politely asked you to take your concerns to the talk page, and instead you destroyed the lead section and removed reliably sourced information. I'm afraid this type of editing behavior is entirely disruptive and serves no useful purpose. Please stop. —Viriditas | Talk 13:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not continue to disrupt the article. You just completely destroyed the lead section, adding casting information to production, removing reliably sourced information about Tarantino, and placing information out of context. This reminds me of another user named User:Arcayne who did the exact same thing to the lead section of Children of Men. —Viriditas | Talk 13:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted your edits again because they simply don't make any sense. Please take your concerns to the talk page before editing the lead section. If you have some references or content that you want to contribute, by all means do so, but please don't disrupt the article. —Viriditas | Talk 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I just cut some more from the lead. See the to do list on talk that you created. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've been here since 2004, so I'm familiar with how things work. See WP:LEAD. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines is derived from that guideline and does not override it in any way. Three to four paragraph leads are perfectly acceptable, and many film articles use them. Blade Runner is only one example. The style guideline gives a two paragraph lead as an example. It does not mean to imply that all leads should be two paragraphs. That's a subjective, literal interpretation on your part. If you were familiar with WP:LEAD you would see how silly that is. Furthermore, these are basic style guidelines, and they are applied to each article in a different way. I think you are misinterpreting the style guideline in a literal fashion, instead of seeing it as a basic approach to creating leads. Three to four paragraph leads are common and work well to inform the reader. I'm going to revert your changes. Although the lead can always use improvements (I just cut a lot from it) and I am more than willing to discuss this with you and reach a compromise, please do not continue to "reduce" the lead at this time. I've added a section to the Film project here. Please participate in that discussion. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Viriditas, please do not discuss me while abusing yet another editor. It is considered a personal attack, sweetheart. Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Pulp Fiction
editYou seem to have caused quite a stir on Talk:Pulp Fiction (film). Would you mind responding to this section? —Viriditas | Talk 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)