User talk:Erik

I'd like to retain the sources used for the Reviews subsection, but agree it might be a good idea to tweak the wording used for each. Does that sound like something you could help with? :) Thank you very much for your time and input, Cirt (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, actually maybe I'll have a go at trimming it down a bit, but let me know what you think. Cirt (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Why do you want to retain the sources? It would be less repetitive to work with fewer of them and to go into more depth than saying the film is bad. Sounds like a plan. I've placed the article on my watchlist. (I don't have too many on it anymore, cutting down on my activity for the most part. Damned if I can't stay away from WP, though...) Erik (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I have succeeded in trimming that particular subsection down significantly [1]. Care to have another look? ;) Cirt (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments you could add here would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In revision 333012628 by 92.156.50.80 (talk), the user added the {{rewrite}} template to Up in the Air (film) without providing a reason. If you see a reason that this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, please state it in Talk:Up in the Air (film)#Justification for rewrite tag. I would appreciate it if you or someone from the American cinema task force would determine whether the {{rewrite}} is justified and to remove the tag if it is not. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the British parts from the lede. Avatar is referred to as American-British because one of the production companies is British, and nationaility for films derives from the nationality of the production companies. The British release dates are relevant because WP:FilmRelease states that the date of teh first public showing should be included, along with the release dates of the production countries. Please restore the British release dates and the nationality otherwise I will have choice but to report you for edit-warring. Please take your concerns to the discussion page where these issues have already being discussed and settled upon. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you removed "Themes and inspirations: Deleted content backed by unreliable source -- any *.blogspot.com citation is immediately dismissed)" . How about it is supported by other Wikipedia articles to which it had direct links?????? If some pothead adds a blogspot citation - completely unrelated to the stuff I wrote BTW, but you don't read Russian do you - so *remove* *THAT* *citation*, DON'T remove the text with well established easily verified veracity. Just DON'T!!! *****GOSH!***** WillNess (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Ideally, we shouldn't leave the material if we cannot cite it reliably. The web page from *.blogspot.com is not a reliable source. Erik (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just said to you that the blogspot sitation was NOT a source for this. Someone added it on their own, and it was completely irrelevant. So remove THAT CITATION, don't remove the text. It has links to other Wikipedia articles showing its veracity: just CLICK to see for yourself. WillNess (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite Wikipedia to back Wikipedia. Text has to be backed by a reliable source. Erik (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you go from good guy to bad guy and I got the crappy post and represented as a vandal? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I just focused my clash on the content itself. :P Erik (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of this on AN/I? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to call your attention to some cleanup of The Hurt Locker's award section. I've outlined what I'm thinking about doing on the talk page here, and would appreciate your thoughts and comments! There's been some contentious editing on this article in the past, and I'd like to avoid that here if at all possible.

Also, what do you think about my comment on trying to get a more consistent awards format for films? Worth talking about it at WP:FILM? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and wildlife in Avatar is now sent to AFD. This message is being sent to everyone who worked on it, who isn't already there. Dream Focus 19:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there. I can't see that you were notified so I thought I'd let you know and apologize for this getting to this point. Are you aware that Betty Logan filed a WP:AN/I report where you are mentioned? It's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please can I have some advice. I'm sorry I stepped in. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a lot easier if she wasn't going around posting comments at the talk pages of people who filed a sock puppet accusation against me. [2] and see here. Comments at the latter would be appreciated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays. Hope all is going well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, too! Erik (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Erik. Hope you had a great Christmas. I noticed this edit from you that you de-linked {{tl:FilmUS}} and {{tl:FilmUK}} from the infobox. I thought that was encouraged per Template:Infobox_Film. Has this changed? Thanks --Mike Allen 23:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the documentation for the template, it appears that an editor unilaterally made changes to it to link to the appropriate cinema article. It is not appropriate to link to such articles because it violates WP:EGG -- you think you're going to United States when you actually end up at Cinema of the United States. In addition, in my experience, it's overlinking to link to a country like the United States because it is so general, and it does not help readers much to visit that article. Similar logic applies to the lead sentence with the year, the nationality, and the basic genre. It seems fair to say that everyone knows what science fiction films, comedy films, and war films are, etc. What I've done in lieu of overlinking there is to do a "See also" section like at Fight Club (film)#See also. If you think that this approach or an approach you have in mind needs consensus, feel free to start discussion at WT:FILM or Template talk:Infobox film (the latter with a notification to WT:FILM since not everyone follows the template's talk page). Erik (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that may be a good idea. Because I thought the guidelines were correct. EVERY film article I have worked (or working) on I have included the FilmUS etc. Sometimes it seems like you do, do and do and then it's not right. Sigh. lol I well bring it up later on tonight. :) --Mike Allen 23:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think when templates like {{FilmUS}} exist, they tend to catch on for better or worse. I remember when we split "distributor" into "studio" and "distributor", there was someone who made it their job to implement the new field and its attributes in a lot of the articles of major films. Erik (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick question. On the film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, since it's not a US film. Do we still use the $ sign for the box office gross/budget, etc? --Mike Allen 23:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to use the currency based on the nationality of the film, but I think that the best sources of box office figures tend to use American dollars. If the film makes a big splash in the United States, then I think you see figures thrown around more in American dollars. There's no hard and fast rule for it. When in doubt, you could try to mention both, like "The film grossed £x (US$1.6xx)." Erik (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. :D --Mike Allen 00:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your changes to The Big Street, when did we stop using {{FilmUS}} in the infobox and linking the year of release, film genre, and country of origin in the lead? I don't recall reading any discussion about this. Thanks, and happy holidays! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing references, as you did in Jagernaut twice now already. Removal of references is not considered good editing on Wikipedia. If you have problems with these references, raise the issue on the article's talk page, and gain consensus before removing them. Not adhering to the rules of good editing on Wikipedia will possibly result in you being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]