User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 10

Little Miss Sunshine A-class review

I have fixed and/or responded to the issues you raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/Little Miss Sunshine. Please let me know if I didn't completely address your issues or if any more have arisen. Thanks again for reviewing, and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the lead still needs a fair amount of rewriting and goes into what - for a lead - is unnecessary trivia (eg European festival premiere), while ignoring vital information (US release date - a limited release usually includes major cities, so they can't be discounted - this is the public premiere; also keep in mind that the concept of a wide release is a very recent phenomenon that came out of the blockbuster/box-office-obsessed era, and the "platform release" model long predates the concept of a wide release). I'm still very iffy about keeping an overwhelmingly comprehensive (and thus arguably trivial) awards list within the article, and believe that a separate awards list would stand better on its own (and we have some precedent for this already, albeit mainly with awards earned by individuals). As for my other concerns, I do think that there are some lacunae I touched upon, but none of them are enough to cause me to otherwise withhold support. I definitely feel it's very close! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised as well. There were numerous comments and then over a few days it just died. I was planning on leaving messages on the talk pages of those who had not commented in a while today actually, but it looks like I decided to do so too late. I didn't really care for the comment structure in comparison to our A-class setup with the separate headings (but I guess they don't want FAC to have the numerous headings to appear and clog up the table of contents). I thought I had addressed the majority of the major issues, and for a few of the external links, I just needed a few more reviewers to agree or disagree that they were reliable. I plan on splitting off the awards list this weekend to avoid the whole hide issue, and that will take a while to adjust all of the inline citations as well. I'll try nominating it again in a week or two, but I'll wait until I have got responses from the current reviewers to see that they are satisfied. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blockbuster films task force?

Is it realistic to create a task force for editing articles about blockbuster films? I was trying to think of a concept that would encompass superhero films (The Dark Knight and Wolverine), films based on comic books (Watchmen), and films based on toys (Transformers and G.I. Joe). I just think that there seem to be quite a few editors who work on these kinds of films, and such articles would have high readership. I think that there is probably an imperfect process in determining what qualifies as a blockbuster film, but I wanted to ask about the possibility anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of blockbuster-status...I'm skeptical. But certainly there's no reason to rule out a joint task force with the Comics project and so on. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How about big-budget films? I know that the problem with blockbuster films is that for new articles, we can't anticipate if they really will be blockbusters (Speed Racer is a recent example. "Big-budget" may be more accurate and could apply to these upcoming films: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, City of Ember, Quantum of Solace, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Punisher: War Zone, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Twilight, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Spirit, Watchmen, Race to Witch Mountain, Wolverine, Star Trek, Angels & Demons, Terminator Salvation, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, 2012, Land of the Lost, and G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra. WP:COMIC would unfortunately not encompass all of these. Another possible categorization is "tentpole films". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is why? In theory, we can have a task force about anything - anamorphic films task force, for instance. But the task forces have to have a substantial benefit to organizing - for instance, genres tend to have common reference sources and critical studies. Nations and regions allow us to attract local experts, and the awards/festivals/filmmaking task forces benefit from common resources and a need for common guidelines and whatnot. I don't really see what holds a big-budget group together. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean now; I was not looking at the implementation of a task force like that. I guess I feel the itch to be part of one, but none of the current ones appeal to me. I wouldn't mind being part of a science fiction films task force, though I'm not sure about the interest level or my ability to expand articles on older films with so much coverage for ones like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Regarding the images discussion, there's no rush. I've always wanted to revisit MOSFILM and update it for a more active WikiProject (so many Good Articles lately), so I'm sure if you can't get to this discussion, there will be another one (I'm eyeing the "Production" section, which seems so underwhelming for all the potential it could have). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Blockbuster? I'm not sure about the need for this one. We have a core list of films to develop and doesn't a "blockbuster" have an element of POV to it? Unless there is a strictly formal criteria of course/ . This does nothing to branch out coverage of other films that rarely get edited ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in retrospect, not the best idea. Maybe when my life slows down, I'll inquire about a science fiction films task force, which I imagine would be more acceptable... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be better. I was hoping for a western film task force, but there doesn't seme enough editors to sustain a group unfortunately. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Western (and Sci-Fi) task forces are good ideas. It's a shame that the western task force was one who's time hasn't yet come, but I remain confident that when it's appropriate to start it, we'll be ready. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

B-class question

I was looking over the Category:B-Class Film articles needing review and had a question. If we assess the article and it only meets one or a couple of the five criteria in the checklist for the banner do we downgrade it to start? Or do assess it by the five parameters and if it has some that are yes and some that are no, just leave it at B class? Are we assuming that when it has yes for all five parameters that the article is nearly ready to go on to GAN and editors should pursue it? I looked for the answer to this at our and WikiProject Military History's assessment pages but couldn't find an answer. I just want to clarify this before I start reviewing some of the articles when I have time. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Their assessment scale clearly notes that articles should have passed all B-criteria in order to achieve the class, which was also my interpretation of the matter. So yes, articles failing one or more criteria should properly be considered Start-Class. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a category of the B-class films that have already had their criteria checked? I've done a few over the last few days and would like to know if there is a category somewhere showing them all. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Reviewed B-Class Film articles. I probably should edit the template so that it reads "film" and not "Film", but whatever... Oh, btw, I have had some further comments and strikethroughs on the LMS review. I'm pretty close to support, and not all of the outstanding comments necessarily need to be addressed for my support, so I thought you'd want to know. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess that was common sense (and it looks like it has been around since December 2007), but thanks for pointing it out to me. I'll be weeding through the review category, hopefully trying to re-review ~20 a day. The majority of the ones I have looked at so far have been downgraded to Start class. By the way, I see that Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality statistics now has removed the priority categories. Are we just going to leave the current priority ratings in the film banner and delete them as we run across them or is there some bot that can go through and remove them for us (if so, we can probably have the bot change "FilmWikiProject" to "Film" as well)? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Any updates on the importance parameter? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to respond! I was just going to delete them on sight rather than trying to track them down. This seemed especially prudent at the start, in the event that there was a huge backlash. However, that doesn't seem to have happened (nor did it ever pop up when discussing the matter ahead of time); nonetheless, it doesn't seem to me a high priority, as it doesn't really change anything substantively. Did you feel otherwise? (Btw, is Erik waiting on you or vice versa in the LMS review?) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I figured it would be best to remove them all just to prevent some unaware editors from being confused as to why it is in the banner but not showing up when not in edit view. It's no big deal to me, I've just been deleting them as I run across them. I left Erik a question in the review concerning a possible replacement image of the screenshot, and I don't think he's responded yet. It's okay, I'm in no big hurry. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Arri-d20.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Arri-d20.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Film importance scale

The scale is now missing, is it abolished? Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was deprecated following several months of discussion related to the development of the core department. There was no significant opposition despite several announcements and many months of requests for opinions on the matter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rampaging new editor

User:IndianCaverns is going around deleting cast sections in various films. I may not have been as diplomatic as I could have been (cough, cough) and got off on the wrong foot (see Dimples (film)), but this person needs to be set straight. Can you help? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message - beyond that, it may take a bit of time to sort through the edits. (More hands, of course, makes for lighter work...) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So, have you made a test edit to see how he/she reacts? Or do I get the privilege? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this evening for me - I'm just doing some other maintenance work at the moment... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the kind words! (Though I really must do a bit more in the artice space.) Dunno about running for coordinator, though – I usually abhore any sense of responsibility! :) We'll see when the time comes... PC78 (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fanny (1961 film)

Added plot, reorganized information, removed stub tag. Would appreciate review, suggestions or referral to a less busy Wikipedian. Many thanks, Shir-El too 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look if you want to bring it to peer review. This also will allow other editors to contribute, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do. I don't have enough experience yet to know where or how to proceed, and I'm one of those "learn-by-practice" nerds. Your guidance is appreciated. Thank you, Shir-El too 21:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Any follow-up recommendations? Thank you, Shir-El too 12:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FILMR - it has step-by-step instructions on what to do. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I followed the link and tried to follow the instructions, but there is NO programming resembling what appears as an example on project banner instructions. (I checked twice, both the article page and the discussion page.) So either I can't read programming, the link is incorrect, or the instructions are inaccurate/convoluted/do not apply. Perplexed, Shir-El too 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just add the following: |peer-review=yes to the project banner for the talk page of the article you want peer reviewed, and proceed to step 2 of the instructions. Let me know if you need any further assistance! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! (Pun intended!) Shir-El too 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS Film and cast

(Wasn't sure if you watched Erik's page) Halloween (1978 film), Halloween II, Halloween III, and Jaws (film), are the first four that immediately come to mind. Gremlins and Gremlins 2 seem like clear cases to cut the cast section out, as it's literally just a list. I know that I plan on using the "Casting" subsection, over the "Cast and characters section" for the Friday the 13th articles I've been working on. I certainly don't use it in the television episode pages that I write.

In my opinion, most cast sections are just useless in-universe fodder, or, at least, breeding houses for that even when there is real world information present. Everyone is always trying to say "this character did this in the film", or "this character is so-n-so's bff". Stuff that can be easily seen in the plot section. I much prefer a "Casting" section to a list, as your real info can be found there, while IMDb can keep the comprehensive "List" of the cast.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's centralize discussion at WT:MOSFILM. It seems appropriate to do so since the style guidelines are undergoing quite a few changes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, can you weigh in about a certain expired essay at WT:MOSFILM#Dead link in see also? Seems like an easy enough task if there are no qualms about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In short, it's not my text to begin with, and even if it were, this site is GFDL, so it's share and share alike. Therefore, you don't need to ask me, though I appreciate the gesture. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it. Do you find the article title OK, or should we use what the essay was originally called? Also, any fields to add to {{Film}} on its talk page? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Devotion, mein herr?

I'm a bit puzzled - why is Devotion (film) of interest to the German cinema task force? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Director is German. (See the task force scope for a list of criteria for inclusion; this is essentially the same for all geography-based task forces.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Film icon

I replaced every usage of the image listed on the "What links here" page. It didn't appear to be used by any other WikiProjects; I assume (for I have not checked) that the likes of WP China use the clapperboard-with-flag image. If the old image has been subst'd anywhere, well, there's not a lot we can do about that really other than change them as we see them.

BTW, I TfD'd {{Film collapsible}} a few days ago; I only remembered when I stumbled upon it again before. Looks like an old, unused test version or something, but you might want to have a look anyway. Regards. PC78 (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like China and Australia both use the old image. Didn't know about that test version template - I think it predated my first version by a few months. In any case, I don't think it has any use now. Thanks for the heads-up, though! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Crap. The old image is far more widely used than I initially thought. I'll have a closer look another time. PC78 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush, although I suppose this would've been far easier before the image was ported over to Commons. Oh well. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse

In referencing your concerns HERE, the original AfD was an unsourced article about a future film. The re-written article is about the trailer itself, which has a certain notability, and not about a film that may never be made. My original title for the article about the trailer was Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer) (now has a redirect) which stood alone as an article about the trailer and only made mention that a future film was in consideration. It was accepted at the AfD that if or when a film by this name were ever madde, the article about the trailer could be part of that (future) article. I tried to make certain that the article as I put it up would stand alone. How about we change the name back to what I originally had, so as to eliminate any temptation to make it a future film article? All the cites and sources call it a trailer and even the "trailer" itself calls itself a trailer. The removal of that one specific word from the article's title can lead (and has) to confusion. "A" is not B". Schmidt (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I did some final tweaking and sourcing to my sandbox article and moved the entire thing to the current Seth and Jay article page. I just left a note at the AfD asking delete voters to compare the 1st AfD article to the article that went to the 2nd Afd to what nows fills the article page, because with the change in direction for the article, it just ain't the same one that was being voted against. It may yet be deleted, but I feel good about myself and my work and I know I did my best in the face of some tough odds. If it gets deleted now, I'll consider asking for a review. I very much appreciated your counsel and your patience. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Famous Locations.com

Hi Girolamo, I am David from Famous Locations.com. Just letting you know that we have been around since 2001. We now have one of the founders of Amazon Europe working with us in the company who is helping us drive the company forward. We source most of the information from User input due to the scale of the subject but we vet the information using books/IMDB/etc and we also use moderators similar to wikipedia. Most of the information is public domain I.E. what actors/directors related to the movie/film and the film locations. So it pretty accurate, our main focus is on a niche market of Locations used in the movies, TV shows, etc. No other website on the Internet presents the information in the way that we present the locations using Google Mash ups. We also link the actors to the famous locations. The website is also very useful for travelling. If you wish to go to a famous location or destination and want to know other famous locations near we present this information for users. We have 233,000 movies and growing and could have a link to each of the pages on wikipedia for the locations made in the movies. We also are a very usful source for travel and to find out why the locations are famous. Any other questions please let me know. Thanks David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave308 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Seth & Jay trailer as a unique event

I am doing some preliminary work HERE, as the article at AfD will not survive, even were I to incorporate these modifications to address the concerns of the delete votes. I think this still has merit. Any thoughts? Schmidt (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should copy the page to your userspace and continue to cultivate the article there until the feature film has started shooting. This is a very common and acceptable practice for future films. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I had done so before I sent you the link above. I became interested in the historical aspects of the trailer itself: the reactions caused by its release, the reasons behind its creation, and the notabilty of the events (that may or may not lead to a future film). If/when a film is made it it will have its own article, certainly. But if it were not for the trailer and why Seth created it and how it was presented... there would not be a film. I am intersted in showing the specific notabilty of the cause and effect in this specific situation. That's why I asked for advice. Thank you, Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that things appear grim at the moment, but consider the fact that it is still very possible that this film may not get made. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I wanted to create an article about how that particular trailer caused the buzz. Film or not, the results were rather astounding. It may be the beginning of a new trend in concept promotions. Schmidt (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it might. But it might not. In any case, let's be honest here, they're not getting deals solely on the basis of the quality of the trailer - the fact that Baruchel and Rogen were the creators had a lot to do with it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Preceisely! If "Joe Nobody" were to have made that same trailer, it might have been a curiosity for a short time and disappeared. But Seth and Jay presented it... specifically to create the buzz they did! It would likely have had a similar effect if it had been done by Eastwood or Nicholson or Spielberg. Seth and Jay banked on their current noteriety to bring eyes upon their idea, and it worked marvelously. So though disappointed at the AfD, I do not feel the situation "grim" so much as an opportunity for me to work harder to show this instance of stars using "the new media" to its full advantage as being a new and notable tool in film marketing. So if the AfD disappoints... well... when one is given lemons, the best thing to do is make lemonade. I'll keep working on this and may surprise you. Feel free to look over at my sandbox every once in a while. Your advice, suggestions, or input would be much appreciated. Schmidt (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my point - there was nothing exceptional about studio interest, because (as always) it had bankable stars. That's not a substantive change in the way business is conducted; it's merely a different variation (though hardly new) on the "pitch". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we missed each other's point? Studios have stacks upon stacks of written scripts and treatments that they ignore simply becuase of the volume. The "pile of scripts" cliche' is such a industry standard that it has even itself been used as a device in film and theater. But since you note "though hardly new", can you steer me to examples of where fake trailers have been created by notable actors in order to stir up public and industry support for a film project... another instance where this particular approach to "the pitch" has been used? I will myself continue searching for another example of this use of "the new media" by a notable actor. I will ignore the eforts by "Joe Nobody". Schmidt (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

I've been going through the Future-Class articles and changing any redirects to NA-Class. Is it best to just remove the project banner instead? PC78 (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm actually trying to abolish the NA class (albeit slowly). In the case of project pages, I think I'm just going to replace it with the sidebar. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Girolamo, could you please everyone a favor and use edit summaries? I have no clue as to why you removed the films project banner from a page. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 08:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The page was Talk:List of film series, it was class=Redirect. Would you like to have some automation added to the films banner, specifically automating the classification of non-article pages? LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 17:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I could fix that problem. Believe me, tagging Redirects is a good idea, since it will show you just how silly some are and may be a base to get some weird ones deleted, especially the ones not really needed. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Many thanks. =) Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I Am Twenty

Why did you move I am Twenty to I Am Twenty (film)? Would I Am Twenty not suffice? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may want to merge film-disambiguation pages to the main-disambiguation page of said topic. I did this for Millennium (film) and The People (film). If you do create a disambiguation page (like Bad Lieutenant), make sure you add {{disambig}} at the bottom. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops - meant to add that to WP:RM uncontroversial moves, but I was in the middle of a tagging run - must have forgot. Thanks for the pointer regarding the dab pages, though! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding multimedia task forces

On the Media franchises' talk page you expressed some interest in sending multimedia series over to us. Would you mind if I add a link to our task force proposal page to the WikiProject Films page under task forces? LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Galloping Gertie

I added the infobox required. Now what else should I do? What other information should include? Diego Torquemada (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on what other sources you have. I would imagine that the main context really is the event itself, but if there is any sourcing regarding the history of the film itself, and maybe any preservation issues, would be worthwhile. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDB salary sections

IMDB salaries, which is the salaries listed in the performers page need reliable URL's, the editors seem to check through them daily. I have submitted a Mat Damon salary in the past with a reliable Forbes reference with got through in 2006. So it seem like those section should be mention on Wikipedia as reliable. If you do not believe me, register on IMDB and try submitted a salary, you will notice a huge red notice which indicates they all salaries submitted need a reliable URL, in other words all salaries need a reliable source. Which makes them reliable. And i noticed that the Mat Damon page has IMDB references for his salary, but the problem is some admins on wikipedia think that all imdb references are not reliable and tend to pick on one editor who disagrees with those and pick on one page with this issue while hundreds of other pages have IMDB references, which cite trivia (not acceptable). But this must be a random move on this site. Admins get away with abuse and every one else goes quiet. Lungsmore2323 (talk) 19:07, Monday 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, the IMDb does not have any editorial transparency. While it is true that several sections do require online references, unfortunately these are not always reliably vetted by editors, and errors continue to be propagated across the site. Furthermore, the fact that a "reliable URL" needs to be submitted indicates that better and more accessible secondary sources already exist. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILM coordinator

Hey, I saw your message concerning the upcoming elections for WP:FILM concerning the project coordinators and that you might be adding more. I'm a bit confused concerning the scope of their responsibilities. Is it largely updating {{WPFILMS Announcements}}, reviewing articles, and aiding in the establishment of task forces (at least as far as I can see)? Do coordinators generally specialize in various areas (i.e. one handles task forces, others reviewing, or a combination of any such duties)? If so, I was wondering whether I could specialize as a coordinator for featured lists. I rank second in terms of total featured lists made among all Wikipedians, and I have a very good grasp of what is required for FL status. If I was elected, I probably would work towards encouraging featured lists under WP:FILM's scope, and there certainly are a host of lists that could be pushed up to FL status with a coordinated effort. That said, I understand that I'm relatively new to the film project, and that there might be more suitable candidates who are more familiar with the project. Just curious as to your thoughts on the matter. Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you largely have a grasp on it, although there is also the very important (perhaps main) component of serving as a brainstorming session for new ideas and potential issues, and improvements that can be made to the project, both structurally and cosmetically. We've discussed specialization before, but it's kinda been kept to an informal thing where certain coordinators may stick more to one corner or another, but aren't formally bound to it. That all being said, I'm interested investigating some re-vivification of the task forces, and that may include more explicitly delegated oversight.

If you're interested in promoting and assisting in the development of featured lists, that certainly would be a welcome skillset, as you clearly are quite good at it. Any ideas you might be interested in pursuing towards that aim, whether it be guidance essays, better style guidelines, pre-built templates, identification of "ripe" targets, or simply reviewing would definitely be a great boon. If you're concerned about your experience, then I'd simply advise the usual mix of researching the project and its talk pages as well as staying informed about the latest issues on hand.

Well, look forward to seeing you around, I hope! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I guess I'll just put my name forward and stress what I want to concentrate on. I'm certainly no stranger to the workings of WikiProjects (I was primarily involved in WP:ANIME and WP:VG to a lesser degree before coming to WP:FILM), so I suppose I'll research a bit. Thanks again, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning to run again? Or are you just taking your time to write an amazing nomination blurb to blow all of the other candidates out of the water? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just been really busy, punctuated by periods of laziness... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Soviet task force

Good move with that. I'll let some of the Russian users I know about it. Does it have any members at present? I am familiar with soviet cinema and probably the bulk of the project would be directed to films of this era in Soviet cinema's golden days so I can see why it is named like so and also means that it includes the ex-Soviet satellite states including Azerbaijan which I know has a large industry but practicaly nothing recorded on the imdb. The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Task force naming advice

I think the problem may be that you're trying to create non-overlapping task forces in an area where doing so throws you into a many-centuries-long history of conflict and identity crisis.

There's no need—and no real benefit, generally speaking—to having task forces constructed such that an article is necessarily a member of one but not the others. Consider, for example, how MILHIST has the same area covered: there's a "Russian and Soviet" task force that covers (a) pre-Soviet Russia, (b) the Soviet Union as a whole, and (c) post-Soviet Russia; a "Baltic states" task force that covers the Baltic before, during, and after the Russian/Soviet presence there; a "Nordic" task force that, again, covers the Nordic region before, during, and after any Russian/Soviet presence there; and so forth. An article can easily be covered by several of these task forces, depending on its precise date and the political situation at the time; but each individual group (the Russia-oriented editors, the Baltic-oriented editors, etc.) can organize things from their own perspective without needing to intersect with the other groups except in cases where there's an actual intersection at the individual topic level.

I'd also point out that using a term like "post-Soviet" is likely to be as well-regarded in those areas as calling, say, Greek cinema "post-Ottoman" would be; so that's not a good idea regardless of how convenient a label it might seem. Again, the issues of national identity are a bit more raw in this region that they might be elsewhere. Kirill ^(prof) 13:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Boys from Baghdad High

Hi there. I saw you gave The Boys from Baghdad High a Start-class rating for WP:FILMS. The film wikiproject template now has some things listed that need to be done to get it to B-Class, but I'm not sure it's right. It was not a theatrical movie, and was produced for TV. It is only a "film" in so much that it is a documentary film. Anyway, as a piece of non-fiction work, it doesn't have a plot summary, and some of the other suggestions seem strange and not applicable: "should have at least six sections of information (plot, cast, and four others: production, reception, DVD release, soundtrack, differences between TV show/book, sequels, themes, awards/honors, etc.)" I'm not sure if a cast section is necessarily needed either. It mentions everything that can be verified about the 4 cast members/camera crew in the production section. If you have any suggestions to improve it, please let me know, or post on the article's talk page? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. Television films still can qualify as films, hence why I believe it was tagged. (I only assessed it and added some parameters.) While certain sections may not necessarily apply, many of them still apply, albeit in slightly different ways. For example, the plot summary section would still exist - there presumably was something going on for 90 minutes, and this needs to be discussed in sufficient detail. There will still be a cast, per se, but they won't be actors; production and reception information presumably is applicable to most any released project. Some things may not be obtainable at the moment for lack of information, of course. If you have any further questions or dilemmas, please feel free to let me know. Good luck with the article! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

KFP Assesment

I'm not sure that I understand you. I have already read the section detailing how to make a B class article, and I believe that the article meets these criteria (with the possible exception of images). That is why I made the request for re-assessment. --Simpsons fan 66 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, why did you remove the 'importance' section from the talk page template? --Simpsons fan 66 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that people who have contributed significantly to an article are not allowed to review or assess said article for reasons of bias. --Simpsons fan 66 01:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have never performed a review myself. I also feel that reviewing it myself would introduce bias, and the article would not be improved. If another person who is unattached to the article reviews it, then they will feel free to speak their mind, and I (and others) will be able to improve the article based on their feedback. I will leave the request for reassessment at WP:Films, and hopefully someone will review the article soon. Thank you for all your help. --Simpsons fan 66 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Gerbert Rappaport

Hi Girolamo, you have a new message at Talk:Gerbert Rappaport.--Termer (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

possible error

I read your talkpage notice (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Election 3/Nomination) and noticed that the last link, the "sign up here" link, leads to a a MilHist election page not a Wikiproject Films election page. Thought you should know, because it looks like an error I but couldn't find the page to correct it myself. Regards, dvdrw 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gosh! Thanks much for spotting that - it should be corrected now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-Soviet taskforce

I agree with Kirill's advice above that naming a taskforce "Post-Soviet" is not such a good idea. Now if these taskforces are intended to be joint taskforces run between WikiProject Film and the national WikiProjects, then why not take on board our concerns. I know setting up a taskforce is a lot of work, I am willing to do the work to create a new taskforce to cover the "Nordic and Baltic" and rename the current one "Russia and CIS". At least then we can move forward and get some people to actually join and make some contributions, I know of at least half a dozen willing to join, but are put off by the "Post-Soviet" name. Are you agreeable with this proposal? Martintg (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I've been distracted lately with other business (both offwiki and onwiki - elections and roll call in the case of the latter). Let me finish up those mundane tasks first and then I'll be happy to continue the conversation. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. I may as well return to WP:Films although I'm trying to reduce my workload!! I'll still try to contribute on a regular basis although translating articles from spanish wikipedia seems to take up most of my time these days. Italian and French film I think needs the most development although spanish language cinema and nordic film needs a huge amount of work too!! Not to mention Greek cinema which is massively underdeveloped on here. Regards The Bald One ^{White cat} 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

Could you take a look at the newsletter and let me know if it needs further expansion on the roll call or elections (or better yet, feel free to change it yourself) so I can send it out today? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've proposed merging RMS granularity to Film grain, Talk:Film grain#Proposal to merge from RMS granularity. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like a good idea. Hard to see RMS really becoming a large article on its own... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking it over and removing strange ideas, I found nothing really to merge. Please see if you think I missed anything. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures

What do you think.... of This? Hoax, almost definitely. Sockpuppetry, quite likely. Advice? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice or action:

This is the tip of the iceberg on a rapidly growing problem. See HERE and HERE. The longer PAMP and its sister articles sit here, the worse it is going to get, as the darn thing simply does not exist, and more and more off-Wiki sources are including it as if it were real and referring back to Wiki. Help!

Request for assistance sent to User:Girolamo Savonarola, User:Bzuk, User:Erik, User:Limetolime, and User:Nehrams2020

With growing concern, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear Girolamo Savonarola...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Interview

Hello, I mainly participate on the French Wikipedia, on cinema articles, as Cinéma and Cinéma sonore. Furthermore, I'm one of the main contributeurs of the cinema Wikiproject. I'm notably the author of the project's Newsletter, in which I realize an interview every month. Generally, I ask my questions to the french project participants, but this month, I've decided to interview one of the english wikipedia participants, on which many articles are featured. I've saw that you're the "lead coordinator" and I've so think that you would be the most adapted to answer at this interview. If you're interested, can you ask me on fr:User talk:Stef48, please ? Regards Stef48 (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)