User talk:Erikster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Citation template for DVD Production Notes 2 Awards 3 Plots 4 Superman 5 plural links 6 Bond, James Bond 7 Schindler's List/prank 8 Re: Ant-Man 9 Image Removal for no reason 10 RE:The Fountain 11 Superman: The Man of Steel (film)‎ 12 Re:Gotham 13 FF2 14 Favor 15 Images 16 Deja Vu Edits 17 Erik's "fan mail" 18 Batman Begins 19 300 20 Smallville 21 sorry 22 Re:Cleanups 23 Apocolypto 24 Help me understand

[edit] Citation template for DVD Production Notes

Well I'm stumped for this piece of Jurassic Park information. Video or Book? Wiki-newbie 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

Good job on the sources. Check this page www.mtv.com/ontv/movieawards/ma06 for the MTV awards. Hopefully that will drop you off at the 2006 awards...I can't view it here at work. Bignole 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go check it when I get home, I get off at 5pm. I'll see how my computer handles MTC.com. Never really been there before. Bignole 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. I'm going to go see if I can get that MTV award. Bignole 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't get it from MTV, but I got it from another source. Bignole 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I got the sources for the released date of the two version of the DVD, and the special edition that containted the comic book. The rest of that stuff (the last part) seems a bit like Original Research, at least the way it reads. Like someone that maybe couldn't find a copy of what they wanted and is doing a lot of assuming. Bignole 22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about this http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/08/9708.php Bignole 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You had the chance to look at the above link? It talks about the sales of BB. It doesn't say anything about running out of stock, but it mentions the DVD selling almost 4 million it's first week, or something to that affect. Bignole 01:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer ComingSoon.net, they are a bit more well known. We'll use yours. Enjoy the party. Bignole 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plots

You may want to voice your opinion over here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Bignole 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman

I commented [1]. It has been 3 times deleted and has returned with a different title. Afd might be the way to go.--Dakota 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plural links

From MoS:L: "When forming plurals, do so thus: [[language]]s. This is clearer to read in wiki form than [[language|languages]] — and easier to type." – flamurai (t) 12:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bond, James Bond

This Casino Royale page is now up to 51kb. I just removed the "gadgets" section (which was 3 kb by itself) on the grounds of lack of Notablity. I'm pretty sure there are several other sections that lack notability as well, and many more that could be dramatically trimmed. What do you think? Bignole 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know you were Deaf, and that really sucks that they don't have accessability for you. Does your theater, where you live, get captioned films or are you forced to go to a separate facility to watch movies when they come out? I'll see what I can do about the article's sections based on what you've suggested; I've already seen it so it won't spoil anything for me. I know what you mean about the articles spoiling the films for you though. I removed a bit about Harry, but not before following the link to a place that was detailing the whole movie. Don't care if it's true or not--backed out real quick. Right now I have to get ready for 3 finals for this coming week, go figure that two of them are ASL and Deaf Culture. I'll definitely have a lot of time after those test to sit down and go through all the sections and see what appears to be relevant. Bignole 23:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, I know the difference; I just assumed it was the other. You mentioned "home for breaks", where do you go to school? That really sucks that you have to travel so far to enjoy a movie on the big screen. I guess that's the trouble with society; if you aren't in the majority than you sometimes it's harder to enjoy the same privileges. Thanks for the wish on the exams; ASL I know, just kinda of came easy to me..i think because of the visualness of it. I hope you get to see Casino soon, it's a really good Bond film. Bignole 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He did it because he didn't like my quotations around "the tell". I did the quotations because "the tell" is a poker term, and as it was it read like he was "telling" him something. Bignole 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good one. I don't think either one of us thought about that. There appears to be a growing animosity between us for some reason. He doesn't agree with some the things that I have changed. I'll put in the "poker tell", because I think that's something that can be easily agreed upon. Thanks for that one. Bignole 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ours has mainly been over the plot. First I tagged it for being too long (he disagreed). Then when I removed three things, two of which were "he's next seen" and one was "Casino Royale's major villain" and he wanted to label the plot "in universe". It's all over Talk Page. Bignole

I figured as much. I was sure you'd put your opinion in, for one way or the other, had you seen the movie. I've got to step back for a bit so I can study for these two exams I have tomorrow and Thursday. I think the deepest I'm going to get until Thursday afternoon will be reverting any vandalism, something I can do quickly without taking any time (if I'm on the computer). Hope that dispute between you and the other editor on The Fountain clears up. Bignole 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schindler's List/prank

I updated the Schindler's List talk page with an explanation of the list/prank thing, could you please give your thoughts on why it was reverted? If you didn't believe list is German for cunning, I've clarified I'm not making it up, but if you thought something else please let me know so I can tweak my comment.Cantras 08:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ant-Man

Feh. It happens. I've fixed the dab page so it's at least up to snuff. You could always request expansion, but honestly, I wouldn't bother. Like Kid Flash, Mastermind (comics) and several others, it was probably created by someone who didn't have the time, energy, resources to make something like Robin or Speedy. My advice to you is either leave it—Not a bad article, really, especially for a stub—or try to expand the Ant-Man page a bit while merging that content. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Removal for no reason

The trailer DOES exist, and showing a pic that matches the description ISN'T invalid. I dislike heavy-handed editing. I defy you to prove it's irrelevent. Case in point: NOTHING in the Halo 3 ESPN ad occurs in the game, which is months from release. No one' removed pics from it. Why? IT'S AN ACTUAL AD. The Transformers trailer is an actual ad, and therefore relevent. JAF1970 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:The Fountain

I have re-reviewed The Fountain.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman: The Man of Steel (film)‎

Seems like we have it again. This user keeps removing the deletion tag. Bignole

The word 'snitch' somehow feels appropriate at the moment. Believe me, I in no feel victimised, and am not seeking to be a nuisance. However, I do think the sequel deserves an article of its own. And as the imdb page reveals, this is the current title. At the moment Wikipedia is not up-to-date, all-be-it on a relatively unimportant article. Possecomitatus 21:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no answer on the Bond front. It was a counter-argument used to defend against the "Superman hasn't even got a script" argument

I could do all that, but to be honest I'm bored now, having already wasted far to much time on this. If Bignole had messaged me and explained, in polite, reasonable tones then I would have quite happily bowed to his presumably greater wisdom. But the frankly vaguely snotty tone of the message ticked me off a little. You both believe the article to be in violation of the thing. Fine. I think you're wrong, but there we go. Perhaps a reference to the working title on the Superman Returns page would be more appropriate. And incidentally IMDB is the most reliable movie web site. Certainly more up-to-date than Wikipedia. Probably because of stuff like this.

Lol fair enough. Although as a wannabe professional in the film business, I've found it invaluable and insanely accurate most of the time. Actually I quite like the idea of Aunt May is carnage... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Possecomitatus (talk • contribs) 18:20, December 7, 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this title. It seems like a cheap trick to pull from the Batman sequel (i.e. name you film after your character's most famous monicker). Oh, and are we still going to look for Gotham City images? Bignole 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Gotham

I wasn't sure if we were still looking for one. I don't think we really do, because a City is a City, and because there isn't that much going for that section to really need an image I would assume. Bignole 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FF2

take a look at what I've done if you're still up? Also, LEX LETHAL is upset that after talking to you, I change things, so I think, and hope, he'll give it a try at working with us. We'll see what he does. ThuranX 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favor

Could you take a look at the Talk: Smallville (Season 1)#External links for me, you always have good insight into things and I feel as though I'm being ganged up on over there. I'd appreciate any opinion you have about that. Bignole 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I find myself checking Wiki when I check my email at school in the hall. lol. I'm glad you liked Casino Royale, and that you finally got to see it. I have one more final and a 5 page paper. The paper's on an interview that I did, that was recorded on a DVD...I check the DVD only to find that it recorded just 2 seconds of the interview. Bignole 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The size thing is an illusion. Matt and Peregrine are adding as much "fluff" to the article so that they can get there way. There was a vote awhile ago about individual pages, and they wanted them, but the majority, including third party admins said that the episodes couldn't handle indivual pages. Now, they are attempting to reinstate what was voted against. Peregrine's already relinked all the headers to pages that were supposed to have been deleted, and they persist that 30 kb is too large, especially when Peregrine's own List of Smallville episodes page is 65kb. Bignole 23:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a message. I think the call to revoke GA status was probably rushed. I think there may be more of a concern for ambiguity than NPOV violation or OR. My suggestion was that it probably should have been brought to the Talk Page first, and if it couldn't be cleared up there, then take action. (In the middle of this), it seems he unchallenged it. Good luck with the article, you've done a lot of good work with it already. Bignole 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll check out what he says. What does my talk page look like to you? It works fine for me. I used 1 equal sign so that I wouldn't have the line underneath the "To Report Vandalism". Is it screwing up the page when you look at it? Bignole 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you get a chance, it seems Peregrine is not blanking and redirecting the Season 1 page to his "list of Episode" page. Bignole 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Thanks a lot Erik for your prompt response. Right after I msg'd you, I found that the problem was fixed, so I removed the msg not to bug you for no use. The Fair use link however still comes handy for the future. Thanks & Regards--Goarany 21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deja Vu Edits

You commented that I didn't use references for a recent edit. Not sure what you're referring to - My text only referred to a specific book, which I sited completely with author and title. There were some other wonky facts around my edit, on which I repaired some terrible English - but they aren't my facts and you can strip them out if you wish. Rossgk 21:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Read your followup about "original research". My comment that the plot is the same as the cited book is an observation. I'm not sure why it would warrant concern anymore than the 'unreferenced' points all around it. Every one of those bullets in that list at the bottom of the entry are identical observations about elements of the movie - the vehicle, the HLGold book etc... What gives? Statement of a fact is hardly research - this is the same as that... there's no subjective statement or opinion element. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rossgk (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Erik's "fan mail"

What happened with this guy (Soupy)? Seems like it came out of the blue, did you correct his vandalism somewhere else? Congratulations on the "Satisfied Customer" though, you still have to get one to actually create a name against you..lol. Bignole 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with 'Soupy'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batman Begins

Some time ago, you voted against the nomination of Batman Begins as a Featured Article. The article has come a long way since, and I was wondering if you could take the time to share any suggestions you might have, either on my user talk page or the film article's own talk page. I do not believe that the article is yet ready for another FA nomination as I have improvements in mind. I hope that you will be able to share any insights you might have to help improve the article. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Erik, and thanks for the invitation. It's greatly improved and is well on its way to Featured Article. I think the "Production", "Adaptation" and "Design" sections are well done. I think on the whole the writing is good but could be improved particularly in the plot section which is quite static. I think this could be helped by merging some of the sentences so that 2 short sentences become 1 longer sentence. I also think that repeated words create a stilted effect, for example " Bruce is freed the next day, and travels to the top of a mountain to begin his training in the art of crime fighting. Wayne completes his training, apparently overcoming his fear of bats, but is then challenged to execute a murderer." Also in the same paragraph "apparent" and "apparently" are both used. On the other hand where you have two unrelated ideas in one sentence, the result is awkward, as in the last sentence. Overcoming a fear of bats and being challenged to commit murder are unrelated, so rather than using one sentence to flow between two points with a common theme, you've got two unrelated themes. Also, in the space of one paragraph the hero is referred to as "Bruce" and as "Wayne". Here's what I would suggest to merge the sentences, reduce the repetition, and so on. Wayne is freed the next day, and travels to a mountain-top facility to begin training in the art of crime fighting, and in the process overcomes his fear of bats. Challenged by Ra's to commit a murder, Wayne hesitates..... etc".

There are examples of slang terms, which should be avoided. For example "completely in the pocket of Falcone" could be, "completely under Falcone's control". Another one is "development hell". I'm really against jargon. There's a place for it but it doesn't set the right tone here. I think we should strive to be scholarly rather than merely clever. This is a particularly bad one to use because it links to an article that is tagged with "original research" and "cleanup" tags - zero credibility. Could the same be said of "rebooted" (in the lead)? The article it links to has no sources - I don't know enough about the subject to be sure if it's jargon, but it looks like it. I think the lead should be kept very clean and clear and people shouldn't have to click on links to see what words mean, as it breaks the concentration. Leave that for the article but keep the lead simple. (I can't find "rebooted" in the article anywhere. Maybe I missed it but it shouldn't be in the lead if it doesn't appear in the article anyhow as the lead is meant to summarize, rather than present concepts in isolation. )

The critical reception needs to be beefed up. My main criticism would be of the lead paragraph, which should be a summary of the article. Half of the lead is related to the film's reception and is roughly equal to the depth of coverage this topic is given in the article. I think it's the wrong balance as the topic is treated with too much emphasis in the lead, and too little emphasis in the article. Comments such as the film was "darker" in the lead paragraph - I can't find anything that obviously supports this in the article. I can understand what you're trying to say there, but I don't think it comes across as well as it could.

Images. Any fair use image must be carefully chosen. I would ensure that the image description page contains a clear rationale as to why that particular image was chosen, rather than any generic rationales. Something along the lines of "this image is important in discussing the film because it shows (and then be very clear about what you consider it shows). Image captions in the article are also important because they very subtly say "this is why this image is here, it's really important", and maybe the text of the article needs to be expanded so that the image fits in with the text. You can bet your life that in FAC someone will challenge them, so you should be careful not to give anyone a reason for questioning them. Their necessity should be patently obvious. For example Image:Gordon-batman-rooftop.jpg with the caption Batman and Gordon assume new responsibilities is particularly weak. I've seen the film, but if I hadn't seen it, I would be wondering what the point is.

I think the article is very, very good, which is why I've commented at such length here. It has a great deal of potential. You've done some excellent work there. Rossrs 10:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to tweak the plot per his suggestions, may need a bit more..not sure. Should we remove "reboot" from the lead, or discuss it further in the "production" section? I'll see if I can just use a better word for now. Maybe just simply "restarted the continuity of the franchise"?? Bignole 16:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to make sure, because I wasn't clear if he wanted it out or just more content about it elsewhere. Good luck on your finals, I have a paper due tonight and a final Thursday (most of mine were last week). I just started a new project The Detective, so that's going to be one of my priorities here soon. I got tired of having the red link on my user page. Bignole 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt. We have several goodgreat editors working on these articles, so I have no doubt we can whip these articles into the best shape they can be in. Bignole 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what you were going to do about that. I'll get rid of it and just point him to my talk page when he has questions (unless you are willing to answer any rumormill questions he may have). Bignole 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 300

It seems like the article is really your baby, but I was wondering if it'd be fine to start trimming the article's production and vision sections for a full chronological article given the approaching release. Any suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) 15:26, December 11, 2006 (UTC)

Um, ok mate. I'd rather stick to my Transformers and Bionicles. Wiki-newbie 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd basically consider the article done. Until then, copyedits, as well as a Response and DVD section. Wiki-newbie 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is the possibility of a Soundtrack article. Still, post me some of those excellent Miller information and I'll dig up the suitable stuff. Wiki-newbie 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville

Hi. Do you find pages like Hothead (Smallville episode) objectionable? - Peregrinefisher 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curiuous, because you said discuss on talk page with your revert, and we know how Bignole and I feel, so I'm wondering how you feel about including stuff like a guest cast in TV articles. - Peregrinefisher 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you feel the same as Bignole. I guess all I can say is that i feel the individual pages are importanant for a few reasons. A summary that someone not familiar with the show can easily follow requires a bit more info than the season page has. Also, the guest stars work better as bulleted lists, but when you try and fit them in to the season page, it makes it too tall. And having the external links on a per episode basis will allow people to find the imdb and tv.com versions with less scrolling and clicking. - Peregrinefisher 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

Sorry for funking up the spidey stuff. Guess I have lots to learn there. Please forgive my shitty comments. Boggydark 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Cleanups

Took care of it just before I read your message. Also took care of the "ballbusting" again. I directed Harley to the archived discussion we had and explained it all. I also told the Anon about ballbusting. Have you read those articles, ballbusting and it's affiliates? They are rather crude. Bignole 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I'm sorry, but I would probably not be able to control the laughter for hours if I came online and found "Today's Featured Article: The ballbusting". I can see it now, with citations from local dominatrix clubs. I think if Wikipedia had featured articles like that, it would say a lot of things. 1. Look, you can find encyclopedic content in anything. 2. They are corrupting our youths (I'm sure someone will say that) 3. We have some seriously lonely people in the world that could actually turn that article into a FA class. Bignole 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I knew that Die Hard was based on Roderick Thorp's Nothing Lasts Forever, and I'm a really big fan of Die Hard. To me, DH is one of the best action films ever made. So I wanted to read the book, NLF, but then I found out that it was a sequel to The Detective (which also had a movie). So I ordered both of the books (haven't read them yet, I have to finish a King book that I am reading first). Then I got tired of looking at a red link on my user page, so I searched WikiProjectNovels for a template and created the page myself. I've been trying to get general information that won't spoil the book for me before I read it, then after I do I'm going to fill in the rest. I moved everything to a sandbox because someone came through and removed all the sample sections because they didn't have any information. I'm going to work on it in my sandbox and then transfer. I don't think I'll have too many editors working on the article, it's been red on "Nothing Lasts Forever" and "Die Hard" forever. Bignole 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I love King. I loved the "Dark Tower" series, it was awesome. Right now I'm reading his old short story book "Skeleton Crew" (almost finished it). I read "Cell" when it came out awhile ago, that was good. I was going to jump back into those two Dan Brown books that are a lesser known than DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons, they're "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress", but now that I'm working on The Detective I need to read that so that the page doesn't sit in limbo forever. It's a really thick book so it may take me a bit since I don't tend to read while I'm at home all that much, but since Breaks coming up I should have more time to do that. Bignole 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apocolypto

Thank you! At the moment, I was just planning to add in informaiton from this one article I was reading. I may be able to add in more from the other references later, though. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help me understand

I have added a link to some movie review pages that were biblical in nature like The Nativity Story. The link was to a page on GraceCentered.com, which is a Christian website that has news and movie reviews in addition to other things. The authors write for newspapers around the country, have been published by top publishing companies and many hold Ph.D's in Theology and New/Old Testament. Their opinions, when it comes to movies about biblical text are very valuable in terms of biblical and historical accuracy. I don't understand why you would remove a review by a Bible scholar from a website that is on the same level as Christianity Today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leesw (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC).