User talk:Erik: Difference between revisions

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Hello Erik. I hope that you had a nice holiday season and that your journey into 2014 is going well. I don't know if you are aware but AllRovi‎ has gone back to being Allmovie. I started a thread about moving the page here Talk:AllRovi#Possible page move. Based on this edit I think it is time to proceed with the move. Normally I would go ahead and move it but I am pretty sure that it has been moved at least once before and I have not dealt with double redirects or any other pitfalls of dealing with a situation like this. I also went to the WP:RPM page but as I read through it I couldn't decide if this move had any business being there. When you get a chance could you please take a look and give me an idea how we might proceed. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Allrovi template for our EL sections has already been updated. I think that is another good reason that we should move the article. MarnetteD | Talk 02:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: I am seeing two articles: AllRovi and Allmovie. It seems more complex than just making a page move. Maybe we should merge the former to the latter and try to mention AllRovi more explicitly there? (Pardon the late response!) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on response time :-) I hadn't even searched for the Allmovie article. IMO a merge is definitely the way to go. In all my years here I have never started a merge discussion. Do you know which template is used? MarnetteD | Talk 16:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: I think we could be bold with merging it. We would follow the steps at WP:MERGE. Might be worth trying to find a reliable source that covers this change in name and/or ownership. I've done a little bit of corporate work lately (created some company articles) so what we could do is try to improve each article separately (based on the name) and then combine the bodies as it fits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is a lot to ask, as you are usually quite busy here at WikiP, but if you wanted to update these article as you have the time that would be great. I am dealing with things off-wiki that limit my time (in fact I am heading out the door when I finish this) and I might not be of help even if this wasn't the case. Also, I think we need cleanup on the Template:AllRovi movie. 1) It probably needs to be renamed to avoid confusion. 2) The "a" in Allmovie needs to be capitalized. 3) All of the mentions of Allrovi in the instructions should be changed to Allmovi also too avoid confusion. Again, I know this is a lot to ask but any help you can provide will be much appreciated. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erik. You might remember that you kindly got in touch last year when I was running the first iteration of a course on approaches to research for second year undergraduate students in Film Studies at Queen Mary, University of London. Over the course of 6 weeks, students in small groups adopt, evaluate and edit an existing Wikipedia page on a single film topic. I was wondering if you still might be interested in being an online ambassador for the course this year? You can find out more on the Course page here. In terms of time commitment, I hope it wouldn't take up too much. About 20 students are working on their small group Wikipedia project (in groups of about four students each) for around six weeks, and the course began at a gentle pace on 10 January 2014. If you'd like to know more, feel free to send me a message - or if you would like to sign up, that would be wonderful! Thanks very much for your time, best wishes, --DrJennyCee (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DrJennyCee: Hello! I reviewed the page, and I am wondering if you could explain a bit more about the responsibilities of being an online ambassador. In addition, will the students already know what articles they will work on? If not, I can make suggestions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Hello Erik. Thanks so much for getting back to me. I'm not sure I fully understand the responsibilities of being an online ambassador either, but I get the sense that it is to do with being willing to let me and my students contact you if we run into technical difficulties, or if we have questions about the internal rating and review process for article quality. But particularly I think we'd get a lot of benefit from seeking advice from you about the suitability of a particular article for improvement. The students don't yet know what articles they will work on, and while they may already have some ideas about which articles they'd like to adopt, I'm sure they'd also benefit from your advice on what to choose. My recommendations to the students so far have been that they should be looking for an article that hasn't already been very extensively edited and improved, but which still has some material already there. The restrictions on their choice are as follows: they must adopt an article about a single film that is commercially available on DVD with English subtitles. They also need to choose a film where there are existing research materials relating to it, particularly material like journal articles, books, newspaper articles and so on. Please let me know if you'd like any more information - I'd be happy to add more. --DrJennyCee (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DrJennyCee: Sounds good! I would be happy to help. We have article guidelines at MOS:FILM as well as resources listed at WP:FILMRES. I am not seeing on the page where I sign up as online ambassador, though. Do I click "Enroll"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Erik, it's been a long time. I was thinking about making a major push for FA-status on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in time for its 40th anniversary in October. Any advice? Regards, --Tærkast (Discuss) 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for the heads-up at the WikiProject Film talk page about the proposed move. I agree with you that "chain saw," two words, is correct as per the onscreen title, copyright registration, etc. ... and that's how Merriam Webster spells it! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TaerkastUA: I reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive6, and it looks pretty close. I would suggest contacting editors who commented on the FAC page but did not support the article for whatever reason. Maybe contact the admin who closed it as "not promoted" to find out why and to determine what was needed to get it promoted. My own concern is that not all possible sources have been reviewed. For example, I just plugged the title into Google Scholar and found this which was not referenced in the article. I know that there are sources that are hard to get to, but it's not a reason to shrug them off. It's probably why I haven't pursued any Featured Articles. I'm not that happy with Fight Club because it reflects an early and not-comprehensive style, and I am hoping to rewrite it in better context looking at all the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik. It just seems a shame for me to abandon this project now, it'd be my sort of magnum opus of sorts, getting it to FA status. So yeah, I'll take a look and see what I can do. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. By focus on content, you mean raise this about me on someone else's talkpage? Well done. And for the record, I have "behave(d) politely, calmly and reasonably" in this and every case. Now remind me who's been edit-waring on No Other Woman (1933 film)? Does that deserve to be ignored blindly over AGF? The correct answer is no, BTW. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: You are one of the regulars at WT:FILM. Your attitude toward others, especially in disagreements, has been abrasive. BMK is not without fault, but for the most part, he falls outside the community. I make it a goal to focus on content, but that does not mean I am supposed to keep quiet when other editors, especially regulars, are not going to be routinely welcoming. You make good contributions, but my concern is that editors (experienced and novice) outside the community will be put off from participating. I don't want it to be the norm to denigrate others even if they seem deserving. The rest of the Internet suffers from that. I know that you did not edit war at No Other Woman, and I've commented on that doing by others. However, WT:FILM is the main forum for editors to talk about film on Wikipedia, and I think we can set an example in being collaborative. I think by large, we regulars are quick in coming to a consensus on various matters, but I also think that we can be more welcoming. I'm fine with moving on from the now-collapsed discussion, but I'm going to periodically remind everyone about these behavioral policies if there's animosity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Your attitude toward others, especially in disagreements, has been abrasive." You mean just like a proper discussion in real life, that can get a bit heated? Hold the frontpage! Outside of edit wars by other users and vandalism by IPs, I think you'll find I'm very helpful, polite and calm. How many bad IP edits does it take for someone to stop assuming good faith? 1? 10? 1,000? Fool me once, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course discussions can get heated, but we have to behave politely, calmly and reasonably even then. WP:CIVIL#Avoiding incivility says:

• "Just because we're online and unpaid doesn't mean we can behave badly to each other... there's pretty much nowhere where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into fist-fights, shouting matches, hair-pulling or name-calling. The same applies here, too."
• "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them."
• "No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to 'grow up' or include any wording along the lines of 'if this were kindergarten' in your messages."

I know that you can be very helpful, polite and calm. You post your thoughts at reasonable discussions and notify others about ongoing things for their interest. But you've said that it's different and appropriate in heated discussions, and that's where I am disagreeing with you. It reminds me of other editors like Ace Class Shadow, ThuranX, Collectonian. I don't find Wikipedia the place to behave "normally". We have to strive for the model set down in these behavioral policies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, hello. My apologies for bothering you, but I just started to contribute on Wikipedia in general, and today stumbled on the WikiProject Film. I joined, because I tend to focus on the film pages, but if you don't mind, could use some direction on how to get started, or where help is needed. Thanks in advance. (btw, noticed on your user page that you wrote the article for Fight Club - coincidently, I went to school with Jim Uhls, and still remain friendly with him)

Onel5969 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Hello, not a problem to message me. :) That's pretty cool that you went to school with Jim Uhls! I would say to work on articles about topics that interest you. Fight Club is a favorite film, which was why I devoted a lot of time to the article. Beyond that, I work on films that interest me, and I tend to gravitate toward articles about upcoming films. These tend to get a lot of page views, so I like to put together information and know that a lot of readers will benefit from that. WikiProject Film has guidelines at MOS:FILM that you could read if you have some time. Are there any articles of films that you like, that look like they are pretty bare-bones? I'm happy to help make suggestions on what you can do. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Thanks for getting back so quickly... I've already made contributions on a dozen or so pages. I have a pretty eclectic taste, although I'll probably make more contributions on older, rather than newer films (especially films of the 40's and 50's). I did some work on They Were Expendable, which Beyond My Ken helped look over, which was very helpful (that was before I learned about the Edit Summary). I'll look through the films I enjoy, and start to go work on pages that interest me. My question regarding the film project, was is there list similar to that for the copy editors, which shows where effort is needed? Also, if you come across something which you think needs doing, don't hesitate to point me in that direction. (also, that was a pretty good class of folks we had at UCLA, in addition to Jim, we had Shane Black, Ed Solomon, Tim Robbins, Mariska Hargitay, just to name a few). I look forward to any input/direction you might give me. Onel5969 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Check out Template:WPFILM Announcements. The sub-heading has a few useful links. "Articles needing attention" could be of interest to you. Beware that "Cleanup listing" is unfortunately out of date. "Requests" is a list of red links, and film articles could be created from these if they meet the notability guidelines. That's awesome about Shane Black -- Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of my favorites as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the direction. I started out on Bonnie & Clyde, off the "articles needing attention". If you have a moment, I'd love to hear your criticism on what I've done (on both the article and the talk page), so that I can know if I'm on the right track, or what adjustments I need to make. Onel5969 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were a primary contributor to this article, and thought I'd inform that the film has been mislabelled as American for quite some time. I've changed it significantly to reflect the fact that it is actually a British film. Feel free to look over my changes. Also, what's up? Corvoe (speak to me) 17:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corvoe, thanks for letting me know. Nationality in the lead section's opening sentence can be a muddled issue. I am not sure if this is a distinctly British film. The primary studio is Fox Searchlight Pictures (as reflected here), and this by The Guardian says "rest of the world" for the country field. I assume you find it British because of the involvement of Scott Free Productions? It may be that it is not worthwhile to claim that it is American or British. My preferred wording in such cases is to just call it "English-language", and we can revise the lead section to mention the Americanness of Fox Searchlight Pictures and the Britishness of Scott Free. This would be in line with MOS:FILM#Lead section. If you're still not sure, we can start a discussion on the talk page. I'm in no rush to define it either way.

Otherwise, I'm doing well! Just saw Her over the weekend and was quite blown away. I suspect it will be my favorite of the "best" films of the awards season. Hope your trip went well and that it was a good family gathering. Let me know what you would like to do about the Trost coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I saw Her last week, and I definitely agree so far. I've yet to see 12 Years a Slave, Philomena, Nebraska, Dallas Buyers Club, or Captain Phillips, but I'm seeing the latter this Wednesday. Wolf of Wall Street is definitely in second for me. American Hustle was good but not great. I can honestly say I think Gravity is wildly overhyped, because it's beautifully and incredibly shot and edited, but it's weak in the writing department. What all have you seen? Corvoe (speak to me) 18:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen 12 Years a Slave and Gravity of the bunch. 12 Years a Slave is extremely well-done. I had seen McQueen's previous films (Hunger and Shame), so I was looking forward to that one. I sort of agree with the consensus that it is not a film for repeated viewings, though I will probably see it again when it comes out on Redbox. I thought Gravity was spectacular, but it does make me think of Avatar's run in being a visual spectacle (though with better acting by Bullock and a better story). I'm especially interested in seeing Dallas Buyers Club, as I've had a chance to see McConaughey in Bernie and even Killer Joe. I'm curious to see the rest, of course. Kind of intrigued by The Wolf of Wall Street, especially after I read this at The New Yorker, which responded to the controversy surrounding the film. Captain Phillips, I'm curious to see how a whole film is made, since the previews seemed to tell the whole story anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Erik. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Are people like Lugnut and Clarityfiend and Ron Sinden the best the project has to offer these days? Have the really good editors been driven off because nobody stops these assholes from running rampant and stifling any creativity and improvements. Jsut what the fuck is going on there? BMK (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]