User talk:Jhawkinson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
/Archive 1
This user is a member of the Filmmaking task force of WikiProject Films.

Contents

[edit] Sandbox

User:Jhawkinson/Sandbox

[edit] Todo

  1. Add picture to Cue mark
  2. Convert List of motion picture film stocks to tabular form; still waiting on feedback.
  3. Update something for MP Photographic processing: ECP-2D, ECN, etc. Even E-6 process could use work... (List of photographic processes, Category:Photographic processes
  4. Telecine -> Telecine (piracy)
  5. Address rampant confusion in Surround sound
  6. Three-phase electric power#Color Codes issues, more
  7. Film perforations, table of dimensions
  8. Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking/Assessment list-class and other template omissions, Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#List class?, Template:Grading scheme, Template:WikiProject Filmmaking, Template talk:WikiProject Filmmaking
  9. Cues disambiguation?
  10. Cue sheet rename? --- what a mess!
  11. Contact print and Contact printer expand for MP
  12. dolby stereo/dolby surround/sr/a/nr/etc.
  13. Telecine / motion picture film scanner merger?
  14. Universal film leader, Countdown, Leader blah!
  15. User talk:Green451 in re 16mm film
  16. User talk:Wahiba in re Film stock and 9.5mm film
  17. Talk:Windowbox (film) in re irony
  18. Talk:Coded_Anti-Piracy#"piracy" as a biased term?
  19. Trailer cleanup and Teaser trailer. merge tag fixes.
  20. Foot-lambert lowercase issues via User talk:Ian Strachan
  21. PDFbot issues via User talk:Dispenser
  22. Platter (the horror!)
  23. National Electric Code, Electrical conduit
  24. deluxe's FCT(tm) CAP
  25. Template:Comparison of video formats navbox, incorporating res/etc. info for formats in Template:Home video and perhaps also Template:AVconn
  26. Liaden universe booklist updates, &c.
  27. Rename Template:Home video
  28. Issueskid's surround edits
  29. Tobermori's perforation edits


[edit] PDFbot binary prefixes

I hate to bring this up, but on what basis does PDFbot add {{PDFlink}} tags that use IEC60027 binary prefixes (KiB), etc.? It seems like they are highly disputed, and it would be best not to contribute to the dispute by doing so. I was also under the impression that, while there is no concensus, using both KB and KiB seemed to have a lot more support than simply using KiB. If I missed a previous discussion about this in the context of PDFbot, please accept my apologies (in any event, please accept my apologies for bringing up this issue at all). jhawkinson 09:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This issue was covered in the requests for approval. It is completely unambiguous. The other option of course would have been to actually make it base-10, but then there be more confusion as it wouldn't have matched up with what the OS would telling them. Thus far the only problems have been editors copying the syntax elsewhere from the page and not filling in the byte size in comment correctly but updating the documentation has seemly stop that. —Dispenser 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Are you aware the situation has changed somewhat? You might browse Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Binary prefixes. It seems there is quite a lot of dispute. My concern is that PDFbot has chosen a side in this debate, and is actively taking actions which promote that side at the expense of the other (of course, PDFbot does other--very useful--work!). For instance, in part due to PDFbot, the proponents of IEC 60027 prefixes can claim that number of Wikipedia pages using IEC60027 prefixes is increasing daily at some rate. But PDFbot's contributions to that do not represent editors deciding and accepting the new prefixes.
You list two options above, but of course, you omit the return to ambiguity, and I think that's an important one. For the vast majority of uses (especially in the context of PDFbot!), the distinction of 8% is not material -- it does not significantly affect download estimates; also, anyone who is likely to care should understand from context what is meant. In my mind, the biggest problem with the IEC60027 notation is that it is confusing to new users, and most of PDFbot's references will be seen by those unfamiliar with the notation, and we should avoid throwing foreign notation at them for this reason. (I also personally find the notation cumbersome). I'm not sure what to suggest. This is still highly in flux over in MOS, but one answer is the compromise solution of listing both. While I still find it cumbersome, I do think it would be preferable to the current situation of only providing the IEC60027 prefix that is foreign to most readers. Thanks for your time. jhawkinson 12:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that readers will find it anymore confusing than any of the other wikipedia oddities. Like that dates are always linked, when chick on the image it (nearly) always brings you to the image's page even when they think otherwise, or a bunch of other odd things. I'd assume that people would simply ignore the little "i" and assume that we meant KB, or MB. In any case, if I change inserted style it would mean roughly 2,000 pages would have to be re-saved. I'm not going to do this until the debate is settled at MoS, but if they want to use the "what links here" count then they should only look at the redirect pages ([[KiB]]).

[edit] PDFbot changed KB→KiB

In this revision of Aspect ratio (image) PDFBot changed KB to KiB. I thought it was not supposed to do that! What happened? jhawkinson 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also in this rev of 35 mm film. This is not OK! jhawkinson 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't programmed a parsing routine. This is partly because: 1) The existing code is work "good enough" and is simple 2) The units could have change, I wouldn't want a 1.9 MiB KB. 3) The entry could just be wrong with the units. The last one is important with an implementation I have where it checks the commented out byte size to see if it should go ahead with the replacement. To be honest there are better things I could be dealing with like all the dead links that the bot constantly encounters. —Dispenser 02:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In response to surround sound

Ok for a start, i dont know what gives you the right to "state" that i'm wrong about LFE meaning both effects and enhancment. I suggest you check out the reference i have now included which is a book written by Tomlinson Holman. You obviously arnt familiar with him and the fact that he is an expert on the subject. Go check out page 11 where he clearly calls the LFE "Low frequency enhancment". So don't try and revert my edit and in future i'd prefer it if you ask where my reference is, not state that im wrong, when it turns out, you are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Issueskid (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is your reference to suggest music and film use different layouts? You cannot revert an edit back to stating this when you also have no proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Issueskid (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, you ask me to not throw attacks at you such as presuming you don't know who Holman is. Isn't this exactly what you did to me with LFE? You stated I was wrong, you didn’t politely ask me for a reference. Secondly it is relevant to have "enhancement" in the section because if people are reading up on the subject and come across low frequency enhancement they may wonder what the hell it means when they have only heard of effects, therefore enhancement should remain in the section. I think it's ok to get rid of 3-0 but not the others (3-2 etc...). Finally you may have noticed for 7.1 I’ve put a citation needed remark next to music placement. If citation is not soon provided I suggest it is also changed. As for the rest of my edits concerning placement, many people agree with me and not many people on the talk seem to be in favour of different placements so my edits should remain as they are.--Issueskid (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Domain name system

Hi. "Return-Path" is a header added by many delivery agents with the contents of the envelope from. Doesn't SPF operate on the envelope from, not on the nonstandard Return-Path? jhawkinson (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I wrote Return-Path as it described the content of the field better than From. Now I've reworded that SPF description, making it much clearer.

BTW, Return-Path is a standard header, written by the receiving host in order to save the value that was earlier given as MAIL FROM. ale (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Happy Working Song and That's How You Know

I didn't write the text you pointed out; I just reordered the article. However, "That's How You Know" was abbreviated but not "Happy Working Song". I originally wanted to use the heading "Performances" instead of "Versions" but I looked at other song articles and they combine public performances with cover versions under the heading "Versions". The performances themselves are noteworthy since they took place at a major awards ceremony.

You said, "... it seems clear the reason that HWS was performed as it was was because the performance in the movie is heavily-laden with effects that would be difficult to do in real time on live television." That's speculation. The sentence added by the original editor, I believe, just stated that how it was performed but didn't say why. Moreover, there are no external sources to support that.

I don't think it needs to be edited but you can if you think it's inappropriate. Again, I didn't write those sentences. Hope this helps. Regards, Ladida (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)