User talk:MovieMadness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, MovieMadness, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.

Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it, to see if your idea has already been discussed. Even then, it is often helpful to suggest a major change before making it, to see if anyone objects or wants to discuss it. Do not delete materials on other people's talk pages or on the talk pages of articles.

When you contribute to a talk page, please sign your name using four tildes: ~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces.

Again, welcome! -- Ssilvers 16:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Winter Meeting + June Bride (noms)

(It says "Hi" twice because {{DYKNom}} is dumb ;-) — Komusou talk @ 17:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm flattered you thought they were worthy of nomination. MovieMadness (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not: they're well-written, sourced, go beyond just the cast and synopsis unlike so many film/book/music articles, and of course they provided at least one angle or factoid for writing a DYK "hook" that has chances of being selected. (Many excellent articles don't make it to DYK for lack of a catchy one-liner angle, but then, there are also the "Good articles" and "Featured articles" processes.) Note that article writers (or stub expanders) are encouraged to self-nominate their recent articles at WP:DYK, provided they follow the guidelines and provide a good hook. Cheers, — Komusou talk @ 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image:JulieHarrisChips.JPG

This photo is from a publicity kit MGM issued in conjunction with the release of the 1969 film Goodbye, Mr. Chips. There's no category in the pull-down menu on the upload page that accurately describes this. How do I categorize it? Please respond on my talk page. Thank you for your help. MovieMadness (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The tag to use is {{non-free promotional}}. You will also need a non-free use rationale, as described in WP:NFURG. --teb728 (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article June Bride, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian film

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Italian cinema task force. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes Meester. I see the Bette Davis connection above. Fabulous actress -amazed all the films aren't started yet. Hey as a future reference if you are starting a new American film could you add the title to the relevanrt year e.g American films of 1956 etc. I've been trying to build up a reference point for all of film history!!. Glad you like my Mike Myers type humor. -in a distorted Belgian accent/ constipated Budapest sounding accent with log up ass "Throw me a frickin bone here Scott. I'm the boss I need to info!! " !! Adios amigo ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My Sweet Charlie

Thanks for fixing that, I saw that after I added the box, but I wasn't sure how to fix it either. I figured someone would know how. — Yavoh 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: hello (interwiki)

Hello, i dont' understand what do you mean exactly. I've right now added an interwiki in Savages (film) and i can see the link "Italiano" under languages. Or do you mean that link don't go to italian articles? (maybe that article has been deleted meanwhile. Could you cite an example? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.126.225 (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:The Wiz (film)

I see you have asked for a second opinion at WP:GAN, however I saw your notice on the talk page and went ahead and removed the three free-use images per your suggestion. Thanks for offering to do the GA review. Cirt (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

  • Thanks! I moved the GA review down from the top of the talk page, into its own subsection at the bottom of the page, I hope that's okay. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC).
    • Looks like you did fine, I just noticed two things:
  1. When adding to Recently listed good articles at WP:GA, new entries go on top. They are sorted alphabetically within each topic section, but the short list at the very top of the page just lists recently listed good articles.
  2. When giving a GA review on a talk page, it is customary for new talk page subsections to go at the very bottom of the talk page, not the top. The actual GA-pass template thingy does go at the top. If you need to format your GA review, you can use {{PGAN}} or one of the other templates for Fail, Hold, etc. Cirt (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Next time you can just cut and paste this:
{{subst:PGAN
|well written =
|accuracy =
|thorough =
|NPOV = 
|stability = 
|images =
|closing comments = 
}}— ~~~~

(Or the relevant Fail or Hold review templates). And add your comments next to each pre-created point. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

  1. Cut and paste the above version of the template (or the Fail or Hold versions) into a new subsection of the article.
  2. Before saving your new subsection on the talk page, write your comments on each point after each equals sign.
  3. Click "Show preview", before saving, to see how it displays and check if you have anything else to add.
  4. Save, and it should display the template with your comments appropriately. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, that's awesome! Guess it proves that unsourced Wikipedia isn't accurate. Gran2 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hell's House

Hi, Just wondering about this edit summary. At the time I replaced this image it was showing an "unfree" tag, so I thought perhaps it was a publicity photo rather than a screenshot. You've since changed the tag. The Bette Davis and Junior Durkin images are screenshots taken from the film. They are tagged as such and are listed in Commons with full details. Why do you think they are not? Rossrs (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The explanation makes sense, but although you believe the Davis/Durkin images to be publicity stills, they are not. I watched the film almost frame by frame to get two good images of them. They are taken directly from the film and are cropped screenshots, as I stated on the image description pages. I believe the Davis/O'Brien image may be a publicity shot, simply because I don't recall seeing it in the film. I'll take another look, but it looks like a posed publicity shot, and if it came from geocities, it's hard to know where they got it from. Rossrs (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually... I knew I'd seen that Davis/O'Brien image before and I've found it in The Films of Bette Davis by Gene Ringgold. I'm 99% sure it's a publicity shot, but I'll have a look through the film tonight when I have more time. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sweeney Todd (disambiguation)

Hey there MMadness. You may not have come across them so far in your Wiki adventures, but there is a whole set of style guidelines for disambiguation pages. I know that sometimes they don't seem useful at first glance for some dab pages, but they have been hashed out over a long time and have consensus, and we would like readers to encounter a consistent style on these pages. This version of the page was adhering to the guidelines; maybe you would be so kind as to revert back to that? Feel free to ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Cheers, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You make a very good point about the redundancy. I had another go at it, reducing the duplication I had introduced, but still sticking to the MOS:DAB guidelines about piping, italicization, and one blue link per entry. Thanks for your response. Best, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 13 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Farewell to Arms (1957 film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 06:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 13 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Helen Morgan Story, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 14:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Helen Morgan Story

Hello. I was advised by an administrator that a reference linked to an article requiring a paid subscription to read should not be used because it's not available to the majority of readers, which is why I deleted the one you added to this article. Do you have access to the full New York Times article you cited? If so, does it specify Doris Day refused to play Helen Morgan when she was offered the role in 1950 for the reason I mentioned? Unless it does, it's not a valid reference backing up my statement, is it? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all of your work on this and other films. The two DYK items listed above were both articles that I had nominated, in each case, adding sources to support claims made in the hook to ensure that the statement was accurate. In regard to The Helen Morgan Story, the article in The New York Times states "Warners has not indicated who will portray Miss Morgan, but at one time Doris Day was mentioned for the role." The wording of the hook could be read to mean that she turned down the 1957 version, and not an earlier attempt, but the link to your article may have muddled the intended meaning. Note that reliable and verifiable sources need not be linkable. While there are many who will be unable to access the article, I usually choose to include the link, either because the preview contains enough meaningful data to make the link immediately useful, the link can be accessed by those with a subscription, and that the link supports the fact the article exists even without being able to read the entire article. As done here, the concerns about the fee-based access to the link does not mean that the reference should be eliminated in its entirety. As I have done, removing the link to the preview page would address the issue, real or otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irwin Kostal

Hi, MovieMadness!

The bot added the Chicago WikiProject banner because Irwin Kostal is in the Category:People from Chicago. That category has the description that says people who "were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with the city of Chicago", which makes sense.

If you believe people in that category shouldn't have the project's banner by default, please discuss it with WP:WPChi? They control Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List, which lists the categories the bot works on.

Hope that helps - let me know if I can provide any further info or help! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Living people

Try Category_talk:Living_people. You wouldn't be the first - there are at least two other discussions on the subject there. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical articles

I think you've been reverted because for biographical articles, free images are highly preferred over non-free images. If you look at the image description pages of most Featured biographical articles, they use free images whenever possible. It's not always easy to find them -- you could look on Creative Commons and try to find an image for Max Steiner or Jane Horrocks. I have to admit I don't have a lot of expertise on the matter, as I don't generally work on biographical articles. You may want to present your situation at WT:WPBIO -- perhaps someone can help you find free images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may want to look at the page history for both articles -- the editor's explained his removals in the edit summaries, though I'm not sure about why the passage about theater was removed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that the image is free. You may want to review WP:IUP and WP:10I to understand how Wikipedia handles images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Candice Azzara

You note I didn't speedy her; but there are no cites in the article as currently written, other than to the sometimes-iffy IMDb‡ and her own website (neither a reliable source as to notability). The article needs better sources attesting to her notability, that's all. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC) ‡even I have an IMDb listing; and I'm certainly not notable!

Hey, no problem; we're all working towards the same goals here. Any chance you can squeeze cites out of the sources for the articles that redlinked to her? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Within

Why did you remove nearly all cited content from the film article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With articles about upcoming films, we avoid citing the Internet Movie Database due to its lack of reliability. I saw that the filming locations were culled from there, and I assume it was the same for the Cast section. IMDb operates on user submission like Wikipedia itself, but it is not backed by verifiable sources. Hence, we purposely avoid citing it for anything besides basic cast and crew information, which we only do at the time of its release (due to that information being officially published). Presently, such information is from a mish-mash of sources, often incomplete and doubtful.
As for the link to the Baltimore Sun, the link is indeed dead, but that does not make its information invalid. It was published in the newspaper and posted online, but it was taken offline after a certain amount of time. Lastly, the filmmakers had the goal of showing it at the festival, but they didn't. We don't know why the goal wasn't met, but considering the prominence of the festival, this intent seems worth noting. Hopefully, we can eventually find out why it wasn't shown. Lastly, I'm not certain about the Jake Weber issue myself. Maybe it was bad reporting on the part of Variety, maybe there's a twist involved regarding the premise. If it is truly inconsequential, as we'll find out from the film's release, it can be removed entirely.
Don't get me wrong, though... there is very little information available about this film, so it can't be presented in the nicest-looking form. It'll be easier to rewrite when more information comes out, but I believe the content is appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's the relevant sentences from that article:
  • What Butchart doesn't hesitate to do, however, is set expectations high. "We wanted to make a horror film," he says, "in the tradition of The Shining or Rosemary's Baby."
  • That makes the homes' starring role in this production, which the filmmakers hope to have ready in time for February's Sundance Film Festival, especially timely.
Let me know if you want to see any other parts of the article for clarification. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

IMDb's popularity is why it's included, in my opinion. It's not a perfect resource, but it's valuable enough to include. It lists all the cast and crew information indiscriminately, which wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedic article, but a database. And believe it or not, pre-release cast/crew information can be questionable and indiscriminate. Sometimes a star is listed, but no role is identified. Sometimes stars are mixed in with extras. There's no accounting for the importance of certain roles in such a database format. Also, verifiability does not mean the information should be available online. If it's published in a newspaper or in a book, it can be cited. It takes more effort to verify the information, yes, but it would be completely unrealistic to rely on solely the Internet to source anything. Take a look at our Featured Articles -- they utilize print sources for the most part. As for articles on upcoming films, I don't completely disagree with you. Sometimes there's nothing for a while... nothing... then a wave of information from the press. I think it inconveniences readers far too much to exclude information about a notable topic until it's available for public consumption. Feel free to share your thoughts at WT:FUTFILM. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Cat's Meow

I agree with you that it's 2002. Film festivals aren't considered completely public. Limited releases would be trickier -- I think There Will Be Blood had a limited release to qualify for the Oscars, then expanded later. Such an opening would probably be considered public, but I think for the large part, festivals don't necessarily indicate a full opening. (An exception may be a film that only shows during a film festival and has enough coverage to meet notability guidelines.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Hello

No, I thought I had removed it. Thanks for telling me. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 19:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style guidelines re: film casts

Hi, I was on the Pieces of April page and noticed the cast listing looked a little odd. I looked up the Wikipedia style guideline listing (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information) and saw "actor as character". Noticed that it was similar to this before and you changed it to the "...." format. Since I realized that I reverted your edit, I thought I'd explain. Davewho2 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your movie articles

I really enjoy reading the movie articles you write. They include all the information I hope to find and are very interesting. I hope you keep writing more. Thank you very much. 67.78.143.227 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for your kind support of me as a coordinator! I hope you have been well. Also, I wanted to let you know that From Within will be premiering at the Tribeca Film Festival, so we can expect that "wave" of coverage about the film soon enough! :) I've put in a request to an editor that I believe will be attending the festival with a pass, so not only would we get coverage but pictures as well. Hope to see you around! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pieces of April and WGA Award

Hi there. I did indeed change some of the awards for Pieces of April into bold face print to signify those which were won. In my opinion, I think that looks better than lots of repeated 'winner' and 'nominee'. Also, I'm not sure what wiki policy is on this but most movie articles I've come across either splits it up into 2 separate lists for wins and nominations (such as Juno), or uses bold format to represent the wins, out of the list of nominations, such as There Will Be Blood or The Aviator for example, and no explanation is added either. However you are right in that the latter still states 'winner' in some articles, so maybe I should've kept that in. I just thought it wasn't necessary and that most users could work it out but I maybe that was a bit presumptuous of me. I don't mind leaving it as it is now, but I still think the use of repeated 'nominee' is a bit unnecessary, as it is meant to be a list of nominations anyway (with winner clearly stated next to those that were won).

Regarding the Writers Guild of America Award, you're right about how little info there was for some weird reason. Just some random daytime serials from 2005 and 2006? haha. Anyway, good job on adding the 2008 awards. I'll try and update the other main winners from the wga link. And as for your question, I was thinking of deleting the daytime serials bit too, but only kept it because it was primarily someone else's work. So anyway, I personally wouldn't actually mind at all if that section were to be deleted, to leave simply a list of winners by year and award. Hope that answers your queries, and keep up the good work! Feudonym (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mulholland Drive

Considering the nature of this film, the article may tend to be more focused on interpretation. The film was very critically acclaimed (90% on RT from Top Critics), so it may be easy to perceive the article as overly positive. Can you point out what sources don't seem appropriate? Nothing bad stood out when I skimmed it. Also, Moni3 put together an excellent article with To Kill a Mockingbird. Her FAC process for that article seemed to show that she received input from seasoned editors and was willing to hear more advice. If you think there is an issue with Mulholland Drive, try to explain in more explicit terms what you think could be improved. (I think saying something like "Lynch fanzine" is a little off the mark, though.) Let me know specifically what you think are issues. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for outlining your concerns. First of all, I agree with you that a full analysis should be preceded by the credentials, though it is not necessary to reiterate them again in that passage. (I am not quite sure if it is necessary to mention them if the relevant detail is brief in a passage.) As for your concerns with the referencing, I've looked over the citations and found the use of newspaper sources and academic studies like film journals to be appropriate. I'm not sure if the analyses of this film would be considered positive or negative; an analysis should be objective, commenting about the structure of the film and what how it ties into cinema in general, not necessarily referring how "good" or "bad" elements of the film were. I've gone through some film journals, and this seems to be the case. In structuring a film article, I don't think that there is anything regarding the order of the content. As you may have seen on the talk page, I've been talking to Moni3 about how to re-order the sections. I think she's open to suggestions, so you are welcome to share your thoughts.
In addition, Moni3 is right about the FA criteria taking precedence. If you read the top of the style guidelines, it's a standard for most editors to follow with the occasional exception. I think that many films can be in line with the style guidelines (and even so, sometimes there are tweaks to improve presentation), Mulholland Drive may be a film that would be restricted by full compliance with the style guidelines. For example, there is a more stronger emphasis on characters of this film rather than the people that played the roles. Most roles are self-evident in a film, so there is usually a focus on the portrayal. In the case of Mulholland Drive, the characters may steal that focus. Lastly, I understand your concern about passive POV -- I saw the brief discussion praising the film, and it can be an issue. Perhaps it would be best to ask all involved to consider if they have incorporated as much content as possible in an encyclopedic context as possible, no matter what they thought of any particular element of the content. Also, Moni3 will surely have other editors assess the article, which is in a period of expansion right now. When she seeks wider assessment, I think that there will be independent opinions available to weigh in and nitpick the article for neutrality and flow. I think you should present your concerns to Moni3 -- you explain yourself clearly, just try to assume good faith of the effort and suggest a conscious review of their contributions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 9 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Little Foxes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

The Original Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For MovieMadness, for jumping in to help a project in need. For all your help on Mulholland Dr. Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


The next time you get so obsessed with something you have to go nuts reading everything you can about it, let me know and I'll help you edit the article. We'll get you a gold star in due time. Thank you for not only indulging me, but assisting. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Payment on Demand, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cast sections

I think that simple bulleted lists are most preferable for Cast sections, but not imperative. I don't think that tables are unsightly, but I think that the table coding can be intimidating for new editors. Also, the setup tends to limit expansion of background information about each crew member. In the case of Now, Voyager, though, you could ask yourself if there is anything more that needs to be said about each actor and role besides the names. Talk with Bzuk and see if there is some sort of compromise to work out in terms of style. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi MovieMadness, thanks for your recent note. Let me briefly explain the choice of a cast table that I used. I utilize a cast table where it makes sense; often when there is expanded information about cast members or their selection for the role, then the more common paragraph style is preferable. As to the "look", that may be a matter of choice because I adopted that table graphic after seeing a number of other editors using this format and seeing that it was not a "splashy" or pointless addition. I am not wedded to the format and have made some alterations to sizing when required, see Pearl Harbor (film). As to table coding, it's just another "copy-and-paste" effort so it is easy to implement. Let's talk, I am on the verge of doing some more work on this article and have no abiding interest in the film, other than it was the target of some vandalism and I wanted to restore some of the original edits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) BTW, a bulleted list moved into a cast list graphic with no additional information is a minor change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC).
Hi MovieMadness, nice to hear from you again. I understand you have an interest in the Bette Davis films and she does represent an iconic figure in film history, so I can appreciate your work on the numerous film articles that revolve around Bette. Classic films and actors are my interest and I tend to stick to these areas in Wikipedia articles that I write or edit. Generally, my edit comments are copied from a prepared list, so my terse, "more to come" note is indicative that after research, more revisions will be forthcoming. See: One of Our Aircraft is Missing which from a stub, I refined into approximately 2000 words.
As for the use of graphic lists, cast lists are a minor issue in the development of a major article and although this graphic note in question is not my creation, I happened upon it when others were using it as a section list. I have and have not employed it as a graphic, depending upon the need to develop the article. When there are relatively few actors/characters, the list is a visual representation and is not intended to "overwhelm" a section. I consider the graphic list merely that, a list in a different format that makes it easy for readers to see actor and character portrayed. If a major casting decision is made, for example a "star" "ankled" the project, then using a list will not work, and the standard paragraph note is best used. Lists being what they are, I have seen a variety of them in use and for consistency, I find the cast graphic easy to implement, and has little variance (I like the "look" of it but that wasn't the real reason for using it as "prettiness" shouldn't be a consideration).
The only reason behind established usage in titles, dates and formats is for commonality and so that readers can see a standard style. That said, I have no problem in slight variants being in play, so "Production notes" is just as valid as "Production" (comme ci, comme ça to me). I'll write again soon. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Re:Dear Frankie

You're welcome, I'm glad I could be of help to you. If he exceeds four warnings, including a last warning, he will be blocked, yes. Keep up the good work! (P.S. It is pretty difficult to gauge whether anyone on Wikipedia may have connections to real-life subject matters regarding the articles they make edits to. It's best to avoid pestering them about it, and make sure the contributions they make are encyclopedia-worthy, and if not, deal with them accordingly). Lradrama 17:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In America

Hi! I saw the major changes you made to the In America article and I think it much better, thank you! I was wondering if you can give me your opinion on changing the format of the list of awards section. I know you must have put a lot of time and effort into creating it which is why I'm asking. With so many awards for that movie I think a list makes it very difficult to read. I've created tables for award sections in a few movie articles like Hidden in America and Spy Kids and I was wondering what you'd think about using the same format for In America. It would of course be a lot of work and I would be willing to do it. For An Angel (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's alright, I only asked because I know how it would've felt if someone undid a lot of my work (I've put over an hour on some edits too) -- without thinking. I disagree though, about what you said about lists vs tables, I think at least sometimes tables are easier to read. However, like you said no one really owns the article, so I think I'll leave it the way it is, since you got to it first. For An Angel (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your note

Hi MovieMadness. I hope that you don't think that I was complaining. There was a desire a year or so ago to have any picture in the infobox relate to the language of the film so I thought that the DVD cover was preferable to an Italian poster. But that is just me. Your poster should be okay if you have put all of the fair use rationales needed on the page for the picture. But I am willing to bet that you know more about that then I do with all of the good work that you are doing on the film pages. As to flags WP:FLAG states that flags should not be put in biographical infoboxes. I have noticed that some editors of film pages have started removing them from film infoboxes too and I have gotten into that habit. I would not want to edit war over it and if you want to put them back in please feel free to do so. Thanks again for all of your work improving film pages here at wikipedia. MarnetteD | Talk 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Because Jacques Brel is no longer alive and well...

...I would like to thank you for your edits and updates to the article I created about Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film). Merci beaucoup. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I put the article up again for WP:GAN consideration. If it snags it, I would like to share that honour with you. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, disregard that last message. The editor who failed the first GAN just cancelled my new bid. Oh well, I'm sure there's a Brel-worthy song in that scenario! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI on AfD

You might want to take a look at this interesting discussion: [1]. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:DorothyMalone.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:DorothyMalone.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:JulieHarrisChips.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:JulieHarrisChips.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)