User talk:Moviemaniacx
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Moviemaniacx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Contents |
[edit] The Mist
Hey, Nick! I noticed that you added a "Differences" section to The Mist (film). While the effort is appreciated, sections like these should have independent observations by reliable sources since such comparisons between a source material and its adaptation can be endless and indiscriminate. For encyclopedic context, it's best to narrow the scope by noting explanations for certain changes (like Darabont explains about his preferred ending) and observed differences by reviewers. Discussion about this has taken place at Talk:The Mist (film)#Differences from the novelization and User talk:Erik/Archive 8#Differences from the original in The Mist. A couple of examples of cited explorations of the adaptation from the source material to the film can be seen at Fight Club (film)#Writing and Road to Perdition#Writing. Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, glad to see a fellow Lost fan! Are you ready for the new season? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm very excited for the new season! You know the people on the rescue ship aren't there for them! It's gonna get messy. As for the section I created, I mainly did it because I just saw the film again last night shortly after finishing the novella and picked out all the differences. I left out quite a few and included the ones that were character related. I could condense it down if need be, but I think it fits in the article nicely. Moviemaniacx (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your good intent, but the issue with the comparisons is that they lack real-world context, which is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. We try to avoid pure plot detail, instead providing it to complement the article's context, such as a plainly descriptive plot summary. In my experience, there can be an enormous range of differences between the source material and the adaptation. Some will be explained or observed, and some won't. Unfortunately, it's not our job to profess which differences are important enough to mention. That's why I encourage independent citations for the differences. You could trim the section down, but it's still a place where future editors could add in something like a difference in hair color and argue, "If the other differences are kept, then this difference should be kept, too!" That's why the key is verifiability. I showed you a couple of examples of how Writing sections can be written, and the third paragraph at The Mist (film)#Writing explains a difference in real-world context. That's what we need, and there are some headlines on the film article's talk page that could explain some of the differences. I can find more if you like. It's a little more work in terms of editing and research, but it helps establish independent credibility instead of making our own. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you didn't mind -- I think that the new edits (cell phones in a contemporary film, wow, that's... very notable) show that details can vary to quite a few degrees. I'll try to do some more headline hunting about the film, since I have some RSS feeds and Google Alerts to go through. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HopkinsEdge.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HopkinsEdge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CemeteryMan.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CemeteryMan.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Billlancaster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Billlancaster.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Swatkatschaosincrystal.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Swatkatschaosincrystal.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] SWAT Kats episodes
Creating episode articles that cannot obtain any details dealing with the creation and development of the episodes, and any details dealing with the overall reception of the episodes is fairly pointless. Unless episode articles have that kind of information, they belong on an episode list. The series doesn't seem to have a list currently, so I suggest making one instead of bothering with single articles. Examples of featured episode lists can be found in Wikipedia:Featured lists#Media.
Just to counter a potential argument: Yes, many other shows have articles for all of their episodes, but that is just a mistake that has grown over time. They are slowly being removed all of the time. Close to a year ago, there were close to 400 series with them, and now it's at around 150 to 200. Shows like the Simpsons have the details mentioned above for pretty much all of their episodes, so they're an exception. TTN (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
