User talk:DCGeist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Film noir 2 Essay tag and aestheticization of violence 3 NPR 4 Madras 5 Cowell 6 Image:Cowell.jpg 7 New essay on Cowell 8 Tone cluster entry reference style 9 Kid noir 10 Film Noir 11 FYI 12 Charles Willeford 13 Passed Tone cluster 14 Tone cluster 15 RKO General 16 B movie 17 Sound film 18 Re: Story template 19 Deleted my votes 20 Sound film, WikiProject Filmmaking 21 Dickson Experimental Sound Film 22 Discussing revisions 23 Kinetoscope article 24 Sound film 25 User page 26 Image talk:MonkeyshinesStrip.jpg 27 Welcome! 28 kinetograph info 29 Light and Movement: Incunabula of the Motion Picture, 1420-1896 30 Midnight Movies 31 Kinetoscope and FAC 32 WP:FILMS Newsletter 33 Film Noir 34 Oneiric vs. Oneirism 35 WP:CONTEXT and...

[edit] Film noir

Hi, I appreciate your civil and friendly tone on Wikipedia, and your "let's be constructive" attitude. I proposed some cuts to trim Film noir, removing adjectives (e.g. original and seminal...I proposed cutting "original"). The reason I did this is that many Wiki editors overuse adjectives, so usually it is helpful to cut flowery, POV adjectives to a "remarkably gifted solo pianist" or a "widely-acknowledged master of the guitar". In the case of "original and seminal," though, it wasn't just empty verbiage, there was a reason for both, so I agree with you putting them back................Another edit I proposed, which you changed back, was making long paragraphs shorter by dividing them. This is obviously a subjective judgment call in many cases, but I think there are some paragraphs which still could be split in 2. For example, the para:Film noirs embrace a variety of genres, from the gangster film to the police procedural to the so-called social problem picture, and evidence a variety of visual approaches, from meat-and-potatoes Hollywood mainstream to outré. While many critics refer to film noir as a genre itself, others argue that it can be no such thing. Though noir is often associated with an urban setting, for example, many classic noirs take place largely in small towns, suburbia, rural areas, or on the open road, so setting can not be its genre determinant, as with the Western. Similarly, while the private eye and the femme fatale are character types conventionally identified with noir, the majority of film noirs feature neither, so there is no character basis for genre designation as with the gangster film. Nor does it rely on anything as evident as the monstrous or supernatural elements of the horror film, the speculative leaps of the sci-fi film, or the song-and-dance routines of the musical. A more analogous case is that of the screwball comedy, widely accepted by film historians as constituting a "genre"—the screwball is defined not by a fundamental attribute, but by a general disposition and a group of elements, some (but rarely and perhaps never all) of which are found in each of the genre's films. However, because of the diversity of noir (much greater than that of the screwball comedy), certain scholars in the field, such as film historian Thomas Schatz, treat it as not a genre but a "style." Alain Silver, the most widely published American critic specializing in film noir studies, refers to it as a "cycle" and a "phenomenon," even as he argues that it has—like certain genres—a consistent set of visual and thematic codes. Other critics treat film noir as a "mood," a "movement," or a "series," or simply address a chosen set of movies from the "period." There is no consensus on the matter.Just an idea for discussion...P.S. added info on Future NoirNazamo 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Essay tag and aestheticization of violence

Hi Dan, this note is about the aestheticization of violence article, which I tagged with the Essay template. Regardless of whether or not the article should have an Essay tag, I believe that there are still problems with it. This article may be "A content fork"..("usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject"). Perhaps there is a broader article on aesthetics this could go into. Wiki guidelines state that "...content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." As well, the article doesn't lay out the different sources of the term "aesthetics of violence" (as in "Professor Jones, the author of six books on aesthetics of violence, defines the term as XXXX. In contrast, Smith defines it as YYYYY.")Nazamo 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPR

Sounds like a great project though I'm not clear why NPR would produce such a volume. Some great composers you list there. There's a good reference book called simply "Contemporary Composers" that has a lot of the Asians listed. I'm very interested in contemporary composers of China, Japan, Korea, etc. too. Good luck with the project. Oh, one more thing that's not well explained here...to sign your "discussion posts," put four tildes after your post and it will magically appear as your "signature." Hope you're on the West Coast, unlike me, where it's 2:30 a.m.!  :) Badagnani 06:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madras

I didn't think of that, because since Haydn (and Schubert) I don't think there are that many symphonies with nicknames given by others. There are a lot of gradations: "Sinfonia antartica" (Symphony no. 7) probably bears the title "Sinfonia antartica" and it just happens to the the 7th symphony. I'd say that probably "Sinfonia antartica" should be italicized because it really is the title of the work. Hovhaness' Concerto no. 1 (Arevakal) is another case like this. The Cowell seems to be similar to Symphony no. 9, "From the New World" as to my knowledge it is a numbered symphony and "Madras" is a subtitle giving the impression of the music. There is a way to find out exactly how Cowell titled it: check the Lichtenwanger work list. I think he gives the titles just as they appear (often with misspellings!) Badagnani 19:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

NYPL very well might also have the original MS of that symphony, or a microfilm thereof (unless it's at LoC). Badagnani 19:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't know Bacharach studied with Cowell (how did you find that out?) but coincidentally about 2 weeks ago I spoke with Ronald Gould, a percussionist who played in the Madras premiere of Cowell's symphony. He brought a bunch of South Indian drums back to New York with him and in 1959 and 1961, Halim El-Dabh wrote a series of percussion ensemble pieces for them ("Hindi-Yaat no. 1," "Tabla-Dance," and "Tabla-Tahmeel no. 1"). Small world. Badagnani 20:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cowell

Nice work. How about mentioning that Bartok wrote to Cowell to ask his permission to use tone clusters in his piano works? I read that somewhere. Badagnani 05:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The citation was in there for the radio program. I don't think that is well known (I had never heard he had a radio show, or what station it was on), so that's why I added it, for confirmation of this little known fact. There is a way to do footnotes on Wikipedia but it's much easier to just add end notes (like you'll see, for example, throughout Cindy Sheehan. Badagnani 06:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, great stuff you're adding. The Cuban link explains a lot to me, as Cage's works from this period sound VERY Afro-Cuban-influenced, esp. the Constructions for percussion ensemble, Credo in US, and later Three Dances for Two Prepared Pianos. Badagnani 05:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say leave the notes as is; end notes are a pain (though appropriate in the case of the Thomson reference). Fantastic info in the article! I added what I knew, but you came up with way more! It's an enjoyable process, maybe a little addictive... :) Badagnani 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've got tapes of "Credo in US" (from Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival) and "Three Dances" (an excellent recording featuring Michael Tilson Thomas as one of the prepared pianists). The "Constructions" are widely available; I think there's a CD on Wergo. Anyone who insists that Cage's compositions aren't that interesting, or that his work is purely conceptual just doesn't know what they are talking about, as hearing these pieces will prove. They have humor, swing, and energy to burn. See if you can find the recordings at NYPL or some other similar library. Badagnani 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I would mention that your hard work is really turning this article into one worthy of the important figure Cowell was, in so many respects. I've seen a lot of Wikipedia editors but I don't recall seeing one as thorough or conscientious as you. Badagnani 06:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a pleasure to have an article on one's watchlist and whenever an edit is made, it checks out as a good one. You'll find, if you stay here long enough, that that often isn't the case. It's especially bad in articles like Math rock, where people think they know a lot and are very opinionated, but their editing skills aren't great; or in political articles. I'll see if I can find that tape of Credo in US. It's a great one. The "Three Dances" LP with Tilson Thomas shouldn't be hard to find, though I'm not sure it's been released on CD. The last of the three dances is jaw-droppingly virtuosic and AFRICAN in sound. Badagnani 07:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That German list of works has the spelling of "Antinomy" wrong too...someone should probably let them know that. I was just reading today that Cage found "New Musical Resources" and a book by Chavez to be his two most important influences. I had always suspected a Latin American influence in Cage's early works (from the 1930s and '40s) and this helps to confirm this, though the influence sounds more Afro-Cuban (or West African) than Mexican. Badagnani 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cowell.jpg

Hello, you have tagged this image with {{PD-ineligible}}. However, it is clear that this tag is not proper. It could be used for say, simple chemical structural formulas or geometrical figures, but not for photos! Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. If no proper license will be added in seven days, the image will be re-tagged with {{no source}} and deleted. Please ask on my talk page if you have any questions. Renata 18:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New essay on Cowell

New essay on Cowell by Peter Garland. Looks like explosive stuff. http://otherminds.org/shtml/Garlandoncowell.shtml Badagnani 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone cluster entry reference style

Your tone towards me is entirely inappropriate, stop talking about me. I find your vague implication that I am a bad wikipedian insulting, rather than helpful, and that is clearly not the way to be a good one. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on the content, not the contributor." Hyacinth 23:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate the reference style which you have established on tone cluster. Hyacinth 20:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kid noir

You did a good rewrite of the definition of kid noir (Carol Reed's The Fallen Idol is another example of this and of British film noir), but you wrongly deleted its reference. It's of encyclopedic value to know where terms such as this are coined or explained, and by deleting the source cited, the article now has {{no references}}. --Jonathan F 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The citation was put in to source the usage of kid noir (the definition you've rewritten is theirs), not the specific characterizations of VM and Brick as such. This article (http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1786062,00.html) echoes the usage of the WP article, but this is sort of besides the point. Silver and Ward are not as literal in applying the term kid noir as you might think: Gleaming the Cube (!) and, if I remember correctly, Drugstore Cowboy are listed as examples (would then The Candy Snatchers be? :-D). However, the extent to which Silver and Ward's definition of kid noir has been paraphrased provides only sufficient background for the two examples already provided; you're right then that The Fallen Idol wouldn't warrant inclusion under the definition rendered in WP (not to mention that kid noir is discussed in the book's neo-noir section).--Jonathan F 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film Noir

Many kudos to you for your re-write of Film Noir. I love the writing, the organization, the thoroughness of it. I would race to nominate it as a FAC, but I know that it would be criticized for not being written in a sufficiently lifeless, "encyclopediac" style. I would bet money that the phrase "rife with original research" would be voiced (meaning you dare to state things that could be construed as opinions without buffering them by saying "critic Joe Shmoe has said...^[1]".) In fact, I'll be far from surprised if that phrase turns up on the discussion page eventually. But I hope you ignore it if it does. You've written a damn fine article. --KarlBunker 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I visited your talk page and I couldn't help commenting on this. I do think you're doing great work, and I know how it seems necessary sometimes to point out the meaning of something even though that meaning may be subjective, or to put two and two together and acknowledge that it makes four. But still...it's good to remember that the rule against OR is not there because all original thinking is crap, but because it's very difficult in a wiki format to separate wheat from chaff. There is a point sometimes to citing Joe Shmoe, even if he makes the writing less elegant than it otherwise would be.^[2]

I have come to believe that most of the best work that gets done at Wikipedia is done by people who sit down and write (or rewrite) whole chunks, not by the accretion of individual sentences added in over time. So I don't mean to discourage. But I think there's wisdom in the WP rules--including the WP:IAR rule. The trick is knowing when to apply that one. Nareek 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again; I recently took another look at Film Noir and saw you've done yet more good work on it. If I had been drinking something, I would have done a classic spit-take over your caption to the Basic Instinct image.  ;-) I can see I'll have to read the whole article again some time soon. What I'm really here for is to talk about the Hollywood blacklist article. In its current form, there are a bunch of "please expand this section" tags. It looks like someone with some ambitious plans for the article set up a "scaffold" to outline those plans (including a section heading that's completely empty), but in my quick look at the article history, it didn't seem that anyone has done major work on the article for a while.

I'm wondering if you're the person who set up that scaffold, or if you have plans to do any major work on that article. If not, I may at some point try to clean up the article myself. My approach would be to scale back the plans for the article and pretty much leave the content as it is, but try to rearrange things so that the "please expand" tags could be removed and the article stands on its own with the current amount of content. But I wouldn't want to do that if you (or anyone else) has relatively near-future plans to do major work on the article. KarlBunker 10:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

It may be useful for you to know that User:Minun has just been banned for one year by the ArbCom and he is currently blocked from editing anywhere but his user page. I suppose he might respond to you there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Willeford

Howdy DCGeist -- I ended up moving my response to: Talk:Charles Willeford ! --nathanbeach 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed Tone cluster

Just thought you'd like to know. Congratulations on a really well-done article. MLilburne 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone cluster

Looks OK to me - did you fix it? Rich Farmbrough 09:26 29 August 2006 (GMT).

Yep 26 notes, all in order, all link both ways (well half forward, and half back - i extrapolate that they all do). Have you tried <shift> Reload? Rich Farmbrough 09:46 29 August 2006 (GMT).

Hi, I'm seeing the same thing at (of all articles) ISBN. But if I swap to another browser and account, it's fine. Rich Farmbrough 20:53 29 August 2006 (GMT).

Yes I was working on references, so I thought it was a WP problem not SB related. I would just like to have more data before logging a bug (but perhaps it's already been logged). Off to the back burner with it. Rich Farmbrough 21:50 29 August 2006 (GMT).

Already logged at Bugzilla:7162 Rich Farmbrough 08:52 30 August 2006 (GMT).

[edit] RKO General

I made the changes to the station charts for several reasons:

First and foremost, look at other television and radio station charts such as Metromedia, Tribune Broadcasting, Hearst-Argyle, Gannett Company, and a few others. The style is consistent throughout. The changes I made keeps the charts in-line with the others.

Second, with regards to radio stations: AM stations do not use an -AM suffix after the call letters. Again, you will notice this in the Metromedia radio station chart. If you want to keep the suffix, though place it inside of parenthesis, then that may be fine. But AM stations should read (for example) "WOR-710" or "WOR (AM)-710" but NOT "WOR-AM-710". (FM stations, especially those birthed from AM stations, usually have the -FM suffix after the call signs.)

I attempted to make similar changes some time ago, but they were quickly reverted. I can say perhaps someone is trying to claim ownership of this article, which is a no-no. But I'll reserve opinion until I get a response from this comment. Rollosmokes 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Geist, I happened to have a look at the appeals court's opinion on the case, and it seems pretty reasonable to infer that the court would have upheld the FCC's decision to yank the WOR-TV and KHJ-TV licenses had the FCC not tied their renewals to the WNAC renewal. It appeared to agree with the FCC that lack of candor of this sort is inconsistent with being a broadcast licensee. Blueboy96 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B movie

Hi, you removed a quote about C movies because it referred to the Japanese film industry. I agree that the Japanese film industry context should be added, but the quote (in reference to C movies) was hard to find. Yes, there are chat site references to C-movies and anonymous websurfers who toss the term around, but it is hard to find a legit film critic type using the term in print. The whole section on "C" movies in the Wikipedia article becomes "original research" without some sources. If you have better sources, please add them. In the meantime, I think the Japanese example is useful, because it shows readers that this isn't just Original Research...Nazamo 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound film

The sound film article looks better and better every day. Keep up the good work! — Walloon 05:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I echo that sentiment, Dan. But I wonder if there's some way to make the aesthetics section less subjective.

For example, I'm not sure how widespread this opinion is: "The French surrealist L'Âge d'or (1930), directed by Luis Buñuel, is the first sound film widely regarded as being of great aesthetic import." After all, one could argue that L'Âge d'or does not experiment much with sound itself -- compared, say, to a mainstream comedy such as Clair's Le Million (1931). Further, Buñuel's film caused a furor, in France, in 1930, but had little impact on early sound film aesthetics because it was banned and unseen for almost 50 years.

Perhaps the aesthetics section could be reworked so that the "masterpieces" of the late silent cinema (as certified by lists like the National Registry) could be contrasted with more pedestrian works of the early sound era -- such as, What, No Beer? (a terrible film that Buster Keaton was forced into by MGM in 1933). What do you think? --Jeremy Butler 11:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Story template

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the message. Personally, I like Lost in Translation as a nice low-key movie about a friendship between two people. It probably isn't the best movie ever made, but it's on my top 10 for some reason. The top 10 is a little bit out of date, since then I've seen Touch of Evil...

Anyways, about the template. After seeing your revised version, I must say that I would much prefer it over the old version. It seems much better worded in comparasion. I still don't think it should be deleted because it deals with a very specific problem (tone problems, yes, but a particular kind of tone problem).

On another matter, as you're such an expert on film-noir, maybe you can tell me why Vertigo isn't considered film-noir? I know it's in colour, but does that disqualify it?

Hope my response helps. Green451 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum:

Also, see WP:BETTER. Many of the problems mentioned in that policy guideline are covered in the story template. So, instead of having to use multiple templates to get the point across, we just have to use one, succinctly stated problem that will make people quickly realize, "Oh, now I see."

I've rambled on here long enough, so there you go. Maybe I'm just grasping in thin air here, you decide. Green451 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the Vertigo essay! Great read, and what ever happens with the story template, happens. Keep up the good edits, Green451 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted my votes

Can you tell me why you deleted my votes at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 12? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like my edit was the first mistake. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound film, WikiProject Filmmaking

I just looked up "Sound film" before you started and compared it to today. WOW; I'm speechless! (No pun intended.) As you are the primary contributing editor to the article, I was wondered when you were thinking of bringing the article to WP:FAC? Also, I'd very much like to personally invite you to join WikiProject Filmmaking - we could always use more contributors like you! :) Congrats on the work so far, and may I say that I very much look forward to your future work. Girolamo Savonarola 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right! I apologize for my absent-mindedness. There's not really too much to doing an FAC, other than putting it up there and trying to respond to any critiques as best as you feel you can. I always try to adopt all suggestions unless I really have a strong objection to it, in which case I try to explain that objection and work it out with the person critiquing. There's nothing better than seeing someone change a Comment or Object vote to a Support one! :) Really, just look at it as a more challenging peer review. It probably isn't bad for you to just go to WP:FAC and WP:FA? to get an idea of what the process is like, what they're looking for, and where you are most likely to find objections. The most common objection I find is the lack of citations, which you should have little to no problem with, so that will probably endear your article to many people from the start! I think that it's best if you start the FAC, because the nominating editor is expected to "manage" the candidacy as far as addressing objections, which I don't have the available knowledge or resources to do myself. If you have any other questions about the process or the like, please feel free to contact me. Best of luck! Girolamo Savonarola 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dickson Experimental Sound Film

You mis-understood me. I was talking about no new information that can be added in its current state. For example, an article is not really a stub if it cannot be expanded any further, so I meant that it is B-Class (the highest rating that can be given arbitrarily) because it cannot be expanded any more. The reason I rated it as B-Class is because I cannot rate it higher class (GA, A, or FA) as those are give through official Wikipedia channels (such as Wikipedia:Good article candidates and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates). Also, in the future, do not be alarmed or upset by a class, there are no failing grades and they are just constructive. (That is not meant to discourage you from asking for constructive critism, like WP:PR, or to ask for reasons on the rating.)

I do apologize for my rude edit summary. You see, I had been trying to class the articles and you kept just removing the class, making it appear as unassessed again and again. It was especially concering that you just removed the rating instead of, perhaps, taking it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films as to tell us that it should be re-classed or by doing it yourself.

I do hope I get a chance to work with you in the future. Cbrown1023 23:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing revisions

Hello DCGeist:

I respectively disagree that I introduced factual errors or ungrammatical sentences. The following paragraph illustrates my point.

My text:

One month later, it purchased a controlling interest in the First National production company (which was once more prominent than Warner Bros.). This acquisition included a 135-acre studio/back lot and a large number of movie theaters.

vs.

Your text:

One month later, it purchased a controlling interest in the First National production company (more prominent than Warners itself not long before), which had not only a 135-acre studio and back lot but its own large string of movie theaters. Warners had hit the big-time.

What I did was break a long sentence (your first in the paragraph) into two, easier to read sentences. Does that not read better? By first stating what occured - the "purchase of controlling interest", followed by the result of said purchase - "a 135-acre studio...", I think it does.

I also removed some of the 'slang' or vernacular terms in the paragraph. I know what 'big-time' means, but does the word have a place in Wikipedia? I suggest stating that Warner Bros. (it is Warner BROS., isn't it?) became very successful and perhaps cite a source and/or provide data to support the position that after the subject purchase it "hit the big-time."

I also disagree with your statement about the introduction of factual errors. I didn't change any of the facts. I didn't change names, dates, numbers, personalities, etc. So where are the factual errors?

This paragraph was most heavily revised by me:

The ranking of the Big Five in terms of profitability (closely related to market share) was largely consistent during the the Golden Age. MGM was ranked first for eleven years between 1931–41, with the exception of 1932 (when all of the companies except MGM were unprofitable) while Fox was ranked second. Although it was the most profitable of the studios during the early sound era (1928-30), Paramount was ranked at third as it languished in decline during the 30s. By 1942, after a decade of steady recovery, it had become more profitable than MGM. Warner Bros. and RKO were regularly switching rankings at fourth and fifth throughout Hollywood's Golden Age. Of the remaining three nominal majors, Columbia and Universal were ranked sixth (and therefore sixth 'strongest') during the 1930s and 1940s, respectively. United Artists had the smallest profitability/market share so was generally ranked in eighth place.

vs.

Your text:

The ranking of the Big Five in terms of profitability (closely related to market share) was largely consistent during the the Golden Age: MGM was number one eleven years running, 1931–41. With the exception of 1932—when all the companies but MGM lost money, and RKO lost somewhat less than its competitors—RKO was next to last or (usually) last every year of the Golden Age, with Warners generally hanging alongside at the back of the pack. Paramount, the most profitable studio of the early sound era (1928–30), faded for the better part of the subsequent decade, and Fox was number two for most of MGM's reign. Paramount began a steady climb in 1940, finally edging past MGM two years later; from then till its reorganization in 1949 it was again the most financially sucesssful of the Big Five. Of the remaining three nominal majors, United Artists reliably held up the rear, with Columbia strongest in the 1930s and Universal in the lead for most of the 1940s.

This paragraph was merely reorganized and reworded using the present, stated data. Do you consider my statement that Warner (Bros.) and RKO as being fourth and fifth (in ranking) erroneous? I figured that if MGM, Fox, and Paramount were first, second, and third, respectively, then Warner (Bros.) and RKO must be fourth and fifth. According to the text of the original before I altered it, there were only five Majors. My changes were logical. If Warners and RKO were not fourth and fifth (or fifth and fourth), then which studios were? If it were UA and some other studio, then that isn't clear in the original text.

The capitalization of the letter 'f' in federal is correct. In fact, we are both correct. Within the context of the article, 'Federal', when attributed to various agencies without actually naming the agencies, is correct. Another example, unrelated to this article: North Korea. It is not unusual to refer to North Korea as the North.

In any event, I recognize you've made numerous contributions to this article. It's an interesting article, but I found it difficult to read.

Mikeetc 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mikeetc. I understand your edit was made with the best intentions, but I'm afraid you did introduce a number of factual errors.

• According to your new wording, MGM was ranked first from 1931 through 1941, "with the exception of 1932." This is incorrect. "With the exception of 1932" refers to the discussion of RKO, as is grammatically clear in my original wording.
• According to your new wording, Fox was ranked second from 1931 through 1941 (with the possible exception of 1932--it's not clear from your phrasing). This is incorrect. As I correctly stated, "Fox was number two for most of MGM's reign"; in 1941, for instance, MGM was #1, Paramount #2, and Fox #3.
• According to your new wording, Paramount experienced "a decade of steady recovery" preceding 1942. This is blatantly incorrect. Not only is it incorrect, it stands in direct contradiction to your new (and, I'm afraid, infelicitously phrased) description of the studio "languish[ing] in decline during the 30s."
• According to your new wording, "Warner Bros. and RKO were regularly switching rankings at fourth and fifth." This is incorrect. As I correctly stated, with the exception of 1932, RKO "was next to last or (usually) last every year," meaning fourth or (usually) fifth among the Big Five. This implies, correctly, that Warners was usually fourth.

Addressing a few other points:

• I'm not sure exactly what you're asking in your parenthetical query "it is Warner BROS., isn't it?" Yes, the official name of the company is Warner Bros., not Warner Brothers. The standard shorter version is Warners, rather than Warner or Warner's. Please do a Google Book Search if you wish to confirm this with authoritative sources.
• I'm afraid you're simply wrong about capitalizing "Federal government" in running text--that's just bad style according to current standards. Please do a Google Web search with "federal government" and "New York Times" and/or "Washington Post" and a Google Book Search on "federal government" if you wish to confirm this with authoritative sources.
• The only thing unencyclopedic about "big time" is that, using it as a noun, I should not have hyphenated it. The online version of the standard Merriam-Webster's Dictionary gives as definition 2 of "big time": "the top rank of an activity or enterprise" (conduct search here). It does not flag the term as "slang" or "colloquial." Definition 1 indicates the term's roots in the entertainment field (vaudeville, specifically), underscoring its appropriateness.

Best, Dan—DCGeist 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kinetoscope article

I was wondering if the article could discuss the technical aspects of the system and how they evolved in more depth. Namely, that the Kinetoscope evolved from a cylinder to a horizontal reel to the vertical reel which became the "Edison standard". I believe that some of this can be found at Kino's PDF notes written for their Edison DVDs. I'd write it myself, but I don't have the contextual background on the subject which you are probably well-immersed in at the moment. If you need technical specs, we already have them on the list of film formats. Thanks and best luck! Girolamo Savonarola 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) PS - any more thoughts/updates re: Peer review/FAC of sound film?

[edit] Sound film

Do you remember we discussed an almost identical matter? Well if you don't, please visit User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 1#Dickson Experimental Sound Film for an archive of the discussion. If, after you review that, you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page again. Cbrown1023 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It is also sitting on your talk page. (see User talk:DCGeist#Dickson Experimental Sound Film). Cbrown1023 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying I did not agree with you that it was A-class, but by Cat:Film articles by quality's statement that "You should not assign any article GA, A, or FA grades arbitrarily. These grades must pass through official Wikipedia channels." I chose not to rate it as that. That statement, by being presented at the beginning, implies that it one of the statements to be followed.

I have a question of your statement that "the GA process is commonly not engaged in for such articles". What is it you mean by that statement? WP:GA is supposed to rate all articles.

If you disagree with our guidelines, please take them up with at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films as I would also like to see the outcome of this argument. It would greatly affect our rating process. I'll change it to A because I do believe it as A, because you gave a good argument and it is currently nominated for FA. Cbrown1023 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We could also solve this right now. If you give me a verbal response (in this case I guess signed text post) that you want to nominate it for GA, then I will review it and add the GA automatically (or give suggestions). Cbrown1023 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the Cat:Film articles by quality page to reflect our discussion on A-class also. If it is not liked when you suggest it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, then it will just be reverted. Cbrown1023 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

Your user page is getting kind of long. You may want to check out Template:Hidden or put some of the information on sub-pages with links on your main user page. This will probably make it easier for you to navigate. Cbrown1023 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk:MonkeyshinesStrip.jpg

Maybe you'd be able to answer the question better than I could? I'd imagine it would make future work and FAC for the article easier by not even having to worry about fair use justification (as obvious as I believe it would be). Love your recent work on the Kinetoscope article! (You're a hardcore editor.) Girolamo Savonarola 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] kinetograph info

I finally was able to obtain my own copy of Salt's book, so I thought I'd pass this excerpt along directly to your user page instead of the article talk page - mainly to avoid raising any copyvio issues (you can always delete it later after you've distilled the info should you wish...). Here's it is:

In the first several years of the cinema one of the two most important classes of cameras descended from the Edison Kinetograph. In its initial form the Kinetograph was contained in a very large and heavy casing, and was driven by a variable-speed electrical motor. For the purpose of producing films for the Edison Kinetoscope peep-show machine it was run at 46 frames per second, but from 1898 onwards it was also used to produce films for projection at the usual speed of approximately 16 frames per second. Its intermittent mechanism, which depended on a Maltese-cross gear to drive the sprocket wheel that transported the film through the exposure gate, was not reversible. This last drawback did not hold for the camera that R.W. Paul based on the Edison design in 1896, for Paul's camera had synchronized sprockets driving the film both above and below the gate. Georges Melies based the first camera he had built for himself on this Paul design, and eventually, though not till 1898, took advantage of the facility it gave for controlled winding back to produce superimpositions in the camera. Although the Paul double Maltese-cross mechanism had the advantage of reversibility, it also had the disadvantage of poor registration, at least when compared to the Lumiere mechanism. This is evident in the Robert Paul trick films that involve superimpositions.

The other major type of camera mechanism was represented by that of the Lumiere camera of 1895. In this case the intermittent pull-down of the film was accomplished by a claw driven by two cams, one of which produced the vertical motion of the claw, and the other its insertion into the sprocket holes in the film before pull-down, and then its withdrawal afterwards. This mechanism could produce reversed film motion too, but all the remaining of camera intermittents - the Demeny beater or 'dog' movement, the Mutoscope (later Biograph) camera of Dickson, the Prestwich epicycloidal sprocket wheel, and others - could not be reversed.

In general, the cameras of the first several years had no separate view-finding systems that could be used to check what was in frame during the time that the shot was being taken. The shot had to be framed and focussed [sic] beforehand by opening the back of the camera, and then inspecting the image in the gate through a hole of the same dimensions as the frame that was cut in the back pressure plate. When actually taking the shot it was largely guesswork as to exactly what was in frame and what was not, unless the limits of the frame were marked on the set.

Salt, Barry. Film Style & Technology: History and Analysis. Chapter 7: Film Style and Technology: 1895-1900, page 32. Starword: London, 1992.

Also, it might be worth mentioning the development of the Latham loop and its central place in enabling the development of projection technology; otherwise, many readers who are not well-versed in the technology might wonder why projection wasn't so obvious and why it took so long to be invented. Girolamo Savonarola 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the intermittent error - I probably meant to specify it for the 'graph, IIRC. On the other hand, though...the shutter probably wouldn't be enough to "stop" the motion, would it? And why would the 'scope have a Maltese cross mechanism if not for intermittent movement? Girolamo Savonarola 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Light and Movement: Incunabula of the Motion Picture, 1420-1896

[1] - you should definitely look into checking this book out. The price is a bit hefty (I think it's about $150 in the US), but if you can find a library or university copy, it's completely worth spending an afternoon with it. It's a compilation of facsimiles of important documents relating to the development of what became the motion picture, alongside a page or two of text describing the context in excellent detail. And it is in three languages, side by side. Anyway, thought that you would be interested considering your recent topics! Girolamo Savonarola 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you can't find it, and I'll try to make notes for you. Girolamo Savonarola 09:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Movies

		The Original Barnstar
		Wow, amazing work on midnight movies. I'm a huge film geek and am super glad to see such a good article come out of the crap that used to be midnight movies.Andman8 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kinetoscope and FAC

Whaddya say? :) Girolamo Savonarola 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reclassed that other article as A-class (and it's probably worthy of an FAC as well). I can't tell you the exact contents of the Mannoni book at the moment, though I may be able to inspect a copy tomorrow. But I'm 99% certain that Edison/Dickson original document facsimiles are provided. The whole book is a treasure trove, really. Girolamo Savonarola 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA! Girolamo Savonarola 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 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. Cbrown1023 23:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film Noir

InsertformulahereHi Dan, I have started the Nino Frank and Alain Silver articles, as promised. Any help you can provide on Nino Frank would be good ... apart from the 100s of references to him as the coiner of film noir, there is almost no online info available on him. Perhaps his biography is available in paper books? I found Silver's bio very interesting, in that he has two personalities: a practical, business-oriented side (as a movie producer, project coster, etc), and as an intellectual/historian/writer. Both articles are just stubs and they'll need much additional content and formatting.Nazamo 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oneiric vs. Oneirism

Hi Dan, the reason I proposed the "daydream" link was based on this definition I found on the Princeton.edu page: Definitions of oneirism on the Web: reverie: absentminded dreaming while awake wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, at this site. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:oneirism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title.Nazamo 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I wanted to propose giving a footnote definition of "oneirism" or linking "oneirism" to a page on dreams/dreaming in a film or literary critism content. The reason I began proposing other links for "oneiric" or an in-text gloss of the term was because the "Dreams" wiki-page is all about sleep science/REM sleep, whereas I believe that a dreams/dreaming article from a film or literary criticism article would be better. I'll see if there is such an article, and if it doesn't exist, I will develop one.....On the topic of Silver, do you find his two "sides" interesting (practical producer and product coster VS intellectual/ historian).Nazamo 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CONTEXT and...

Hi! This is regarding the wikilinks in Kinetoscope. Ok, U.S., Paris, New York City may not nead wikilinks per WP:CONTEXT. But, "inch" does. This is a length unit that many people in the world do not use and so may not understand. A person with no knowledge of science may wish to see what a microscope is. Also, often languages are wikilinked (Greek in this article), this is especially important because the name of the article has Greek routes. So please consider wikilinking units and names of other machienes/technical terms (even if it is so common an instrument as microscope). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)