User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 8

screenwriters project

should one of us make a similar post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers? I am very much interested in keeping the project alive and doing a lot of heavy lifting but as yet corralling a Wikiproject seems like nailing jelly to a tree to me. EraserGirl (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this is a group that you'd like to have some degree of involvement with, then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't propose it at WP Actors. I've been keeping an eye on this project for some time, with a mind towards a merge of this sort, but unfortunately at the moment it's not a high priority of mine, otherwise I would have probably brought up the matter myself months ago. Please do feel free to tackle it, though - you have support, and remember to be bold! - sometimes the hardest part of a task is just having the courage to stop the inertia. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got familiar with the concept of projects, what exactly would I be asking WP Actors to do? I have tried to stir up some interest there already, but unless the topic is about some pop film or tv show, no one much cares. There seems to be a lot more energy to generate pages and pages of episode and film synopses than do any real research driven work. I really just wish the guy who create the project hadn't left it fallow. EraserGirl (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the push, I have posted something Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#WikiProject_Screenwriters hopefully I can stimulate some sort of response, even a negative one. I don't know why I forgot that WP:BIO is the parent of WP:Actor, my brain just gave up the ghost after trying to sort through WP:Screenwriters. Too bad too, it would have made a nice active project - I can tackle small corners like dead women writers, but the though of sifting through the whole topic made me nauseous. EraserGirl (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It still can be a nice active project - it's just that I doubt it's worth the cumbersome-ness of being a WikiProject. Believe me, working a task force or work group is far easier and more directly involved with the articles. There's nothing special or "sacred" about a WikiProject - it mainly just means more work to keep it active, run the project housekeeping, and get involved in things like guidelines, departments, and whatnot. It's a completely different set of skills from that of maintaining and improving the project articles. No one is suggesting that the group go away - the problem is the way the group is structured at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support - I would strongly support this move- I requested this when I initially set up this project ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words; all the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for remedies

I replied to your concerns back on the talk page there. Lawrence § t/e 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

re: wikiproject film elections

Hi Girolamo Savonarola -thanks for the offer. I think I am, at this point, going to pass since I need to cut back on the amount of time that I spend here, but I do appreciate the fact that you thought of me. Best regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Girolamo Savonarola! It is very nice of you to inform me of the elections. I'm not sure if I'm ready for such involvement. I'm still gaining ground here and gain on more experience before I can think of such an idea. Thank you once again for the message. Cheers! -Mspraveen (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, like the people above, I think I will not run because I am still getting used to the wikipedia language but I will still do my best to help those who do get elected. Thank You! -Tj999 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this section is for bringing you bad news! I also will not be returning as an assistant coordinator...because I'm running for lead! Just kidding, I still believe that you are the best candidate for the job. School has gotten more difficult and I'm trying to shift my focus on Wikipedia for GA sweeps, so I don't believe that I can dedicate enough time to contributing as an assistant coordinator. It's good to see that there are other people running for positions though, and I don't doubt that they will do a great job. If no other editors sign up to fill the suggested positions, then I will likely sign up. However, I will have to play a limited role. Thanks for letting me work with you over the last few months, and I've been impressed with the changes you have implemented. I will still remain working within the project, and I'll try to get in on the larger discussions that occur. I hope that this core list gets up soon. Feel free to contact me if there is a discussion that I overlook and if you need assistance on any other projects, and I'll help if able. Again good job, and I hope we get a better turnout for the elections. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: WP Films Core list

Sorry it took me a while, but I've left a comment for your last post on the talk page. Frankly I'm a little surprised at the apparent lack of interest in the core list proposal, since it's something that applies to the project as a whole. Can nothing be done to try and get some more opinions from different people? Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the request for more input, Girolamo Savonarola, and I too am sorry for the delayed response. Again, I think this is a fine and worthy project and I wish you and the other editors all the best with it, but, again, I just have to say it doesn't hold much interest for me as an editor. I've been stumped for a while trying to think of an answer your and PC78's question as to why it doesn't interest me... I suppose at heart I'm a cult-film fan. I like the rare, unusual, bizarre... in other words everything non-core. Given a choice between a double-bill of Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind or Wife to Be Sacrificed and Female Convict Scorpion: Jailhouse 41, I'd pick... Well the choice is obvious! I just glanced at AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies, and groaned all the way down the list. Where the hell is Eraserhead??? Obviously, I'm not fit to work on a "Core" list. As to why more mainstream film-fans aren't helping out with this, I don't know. Dekkappai (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's perfectly understandable - your tastes are your tastes. We certainly aren't trying to stop anyone from making those film articles into FAs either. This is merely an attempt to target these ones particularly, since they seem to have proven long-term critical interest, and therefore are high-profile items that a reasonable film scholar might expect us to have at top quality. Of course, at the end of the day, we want all of the articles to be at the highest possible assessment levels. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for your invitation. At present I am little busy in real world. I will be contributing as an user. Regards  Doctor Bruno  02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:European cinema

Hi hope you are well. I was thinking about adjusting the large side plate Template:European cinema to collapse into a small box where you click on it to widen. I;ve seen it done to the Buddhism template. Its rather domineering to the articles I think . What do you think? E.g see Template:Tibetan Buddhism ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary about horizontal expands, so it would be nice if that dimension could be fixed, but I think a vertically expanding box would be fine. My only other suggestion might be that it would be easier to simply have European cinema link to smaller subcontinental chunks like Nordic cinema, Baltic cinema, Western European cinema, etc. That way the templates wouldn't need to have show/hide links. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think the European cinema is a bit diverse really - I mean what has Turkish cinema got to do with Finnish film? But if some editors like to have them all linked the shrinkable option is best -the articles will look a lot better for it I think ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help

I have a bit of a problem and I couldn't find any text explaining the procedure to deal with this situation but now that it pretty much escalated to near vandalism I can't leave it be. A couple of days ago I made an edit to the Sixty_Million_Dollar_Man article. Including moving the cast list to the bottom and shortening the overly bloated plot summary. However, the changes were immediately reverted by user 203.11.134.217. I posted a comment in the talk page and added it to the attention-needing category and it was removed by user 210.193.47.234. I believe both IPs are registered to Singapore. I'd appreciate any assistance in this matter or if you could point to the proper person to report to.AceWhatever (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted his edits on both pages and left some comments on the talk page. (Just for the record, deleting your talk thread probably could be construed as vandalism, and can be reverted by you without counting against 3RR.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The two IPs have reverted the edit twice now without any explanation. Should I report this as incivility?AceWhatever (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists of Screenwriters

I have worked out the methodology I will use to populates "lists of screenwriters" (I am very speedy at using Excel to massage data) but I am loathe to create two dozen new pages, without input from someone else. I am leaning towards lists of screenwriters by decade for film and television. There will be acceptable overlap, but from my experience very rarely does a screen writer last in the industry for more than two consecutive decades. William Goldman is from a list of rare exceptions 8) Does this sound like a reasonable starting place to you? Of course there will eventually be more specialized sublists for folks who work primarily in a genre or studio etc. . . . When I have the bare bones up, I will recreate a main index for the lists, that mirrors other WP formats such as for writers, novelists. EraserGirl (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

invite

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Green Day and other related articles. Please consider joining the Green Day WikiProject, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Green Day. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you for your time.

LukeTheSpook (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator question

I have a question or two I'd like to ask you that I'm not at all comfortable with posting on a talk page. My email is enabled on here, if you wouldn't mind contacting me through there, I'd keep your address confidential. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is about the elections and qualified vs. non-qualified people and what happens if there are no better qualified people who are interested. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Future class

Sorry, but I don't how to give an article a different class rating and I don't feel like finding one of the long wordy instruction articles that tells me how. Sorry I didn't respond to you at first. Djbj16 (talk) 7:00 PM Eastern Time, 30 Mart 2008

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 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) 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive

Hello! Am I wrong in thinking this article is evolving into what reads like a graduate thesis rather than an encyclopedia article? Per the discussion on the talk page, Moni3 is obsessed with the film, and I think her admiration of and enthusiasm for it is leading her to edit the article with an excessive amount of attention paid to critical analysis of the film by not necessarily worthwhile sources. It's starting to sound like something one might read in a Lynch fanzine. If I'm wrong in thinking the article is veering far off course from the material one is expected to find in a film article, please let me know. I appreciate your input . . . thanks! MovieMadness (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On a quick glance at the article, nothing seems to stand out as unacceptable to me either in the text or the references section - is there something I'm missing? There's absolutely nothing wrong with an detailed summary of critical analysis, particularly for a film such as this which is not straightforward plotwise and has garnered significant attention within the mainstream critical literature. What I really would need to know is what particular paragraphs/sections do you have objections to and on what grounds? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Screenwriters

I can't really call it a project, I haven't been able to drum enough interest to even call it a task force. I would like to create lists of screenwriters and have been looking for opinions other than my own regarding list sorting. Do you have an opinion for or against the creation of lists of screenwriters by decade for television and film? There may be some bleed over from decade to decade of individual writers, but rarely would they be active for more than 2 or 3 decades, William Goldman is the rarity, not the rule. I haven't had much luck creating pages, nearly every one gets challenged, I think they get points to delete things the moment after creation. I can do some intense population of the lists before creation, but it would be easier to get them up and then increase population afterwards. Does this sound reasonable to you? EraserGirl (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you(or somebody) help me?

User Equinox137 wont let certain films go onto the anti war film list. I tried getting him to put a reason why he did not want this (Flags of our Fathers) on, but he wont give anything only stating: "the film has no political opinion". Of course, this is only one mans opinion on what makes something anti war, so could you inform him he needs to give good sources or listen to others opinions, because he isn't going to listen to me. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources to back the addition of the film to the list? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Clint Eastwood (director) said it was antiwar, and a whole bunch of critics support it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind though, I no longer need help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"film" page name

I've suggested a discussion on Talk:Film about the name of the page, which has certainly received controversy (as you can attest to!) I hope you will consider this term as it eliminates the occasional misconception about "film" and still refers to the entire process of shooting, direction, producing, and distributing motion pictures and the industry at large. CaseyPenk (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is a small but vocal minority does not mean that the consensus exists. The reason why you're getting a tepid response is because it's been suggested several times before, without favorable consensus. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Film Project Coordinators election

Thank you for your recent note and let me extend my congratulations to you and also thank you for your kind words of encouragement directed to an editor who has a very sketchy and "flimsy" resume in film project editing. I hope to continue to learn and offer help and/or advice to the members of the film group. I will count on you being available as a valuable resource for a neophyte like myself. FwiW, again, thankz for all you've done. Bzuk (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Thank you, and congratulations to you as well! :) You really have done a great deal for WikiProject Films, and I have to admit that I agree with Wildhartlive when he said this. Your contributions do not go unnoticed at all. I look forward to our discussions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bzuk's comments moved to the appropriate discussion thread. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, I sincerely doubt if the long-standing lead coordinator of any project, particularly a large and successful project, would receive much serious opposition as an admin candidate. It'd make it easier for you to adjust the template and review deleted pages, too. I'm not trying to pressure you into running for adminship, of course. Yet. ;) But if you wanted the bit, I can't see much serious opposition. John Carter (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments moved to WT:FILMC#New coordinators, welcome!. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arrested Development (film)

I'm not actually disagreeing with you, and if this were up for AfD or a merger proposal I would definitely support a merge, but there are users who might not, also, you've created quite a mess on the main article which is featured, mind you and deleted (if I'm not mistaken) the entire talk page of the film article. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, it doesn't require a merge proposal - the guideline is very clear on the matter of how to proceed. If that places the featured article in jeopardy of review, then that's on the editors who created the film article, because the content is now where it is supposed to be. I'm sorry if that comes across as callous, but that is the rub... As for the talk page, I was somewhat dubious as to how to proceed, but it would likely be deleted anyway as the talk page to a redirect, IIRC. Let me know if you'd like to to merge that as well. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I admit the article was a violation of WP:NFF and - as carelessly as this policy's been thrown around - WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply here, I've userfied the article here, as nobody seems to be taking care of the main AD page anyway, and I wouldn't want to just be contributing to a section. But, yes please restore the talk at talk:Arrested Development (TV series) with maybe a notice at the top that says it's talk from a deleted article, there is some useful stuff on that talk page. Again, I understand NFF and accept the merge, just believe you should have notified the contributors before making a major edit like that, as is normally done anyway per Wikipedia policy, no matter how pro-policy your edits are, they should be discussed on article talk pages (unless they're reversions of vandalism of course). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 07:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I would disagree with that - there was no subjective discussion to be had - the film has not started production, ergo it fails WP:NFF, and no amount of discussion would have changed the matter; it merely would have prolonged the matter and unnecessarily wasted editorial time where there is no substantive disagreement. I am sorry, however, that my actions were perceived as excessively bold. That all being said, however, the featured status of the source content article does not mean that the content of the film article should not be merged, and your reversion of this represents the only deletion of the material. On the contrary, the merging will only strengthen the film text, because it will make the editors of both the original article and the TV article all the more diligent to ensure that it meets the appropriate guidelines and standards, which surely is a good thing. Lastly, featured status is not likely to be jeopardized by merging unless problems exist and remain for extended periods of time - it's not a black and white status which automatically disappears whenever an FA undergoes substantial edits, and the existence of a film would warrant a section devoted to it under the circumstances anyway. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too, feel that it would have been more appropriate to at least notify those of us who contributed so heavily to the AD:Film article before undertaking such a "bold" edit. I also would like the talk page preserved. Broooooooce (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Cop (film series)

Hi, it's me EclipseSSD. I was wondering if you could re-asses the Beverly Hills Cop (film series) article, and add a priority rating, because I've recently cleaned the article up a bit, and expanded it, so it would be much appreciated. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the Start-class rating; as for importance, we're going to be scrapping it shortly, so I wouldn't be too concerned. You can always assess yourself if you feel the need. Otherwise, my recommendation is to look for more information regarding the production and reception of the films, and perhaps do some digging for hard-copy resources. Good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about Star Wars

I apologize for having put it down for "lower level reassessment". I wasn't aware of how peer reviews worked until quite recently and I've been busy with other things. I've made stupider mistakes in the past, and can only hope to have my mistake ignored. With all that's come up, it's become harder to look for new examples. Even as I write this, I'm quite hurried. Best of luck. MwNNrules (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't me!

It wasn't me. I was framed. I just asked some questions on the help page and fixed a punctuation. I never hurt the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator position

Sounds great, I'll enjoy getting to work with you guys again. Thanks again for offering the position, and I'll try to be as available as possible. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I just thought you'd like to know that there is a dispute between two of the more active film contributors. I have initiated a WP:Rfc re. User:Ed Fitzgerald's pattern of behavior here. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Coordinators#A-class review

Please read this, and then leave your thoughts here. Thanks! Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Muppets Wizard of Oz FAR

I know that you may still be editing this, but I'm confused as to why you're opening an FAR on an article which has not yet even passed an FAC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Still confused - you plan to immediately nom it for FAR if it passes FAC? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just was working with templates/test pages and didn't realize I had posted. I wanted a page to work on. Sorry for the confusion. FWiW, I have placed the comments into the right page. Bzuk (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Templates

Thanks for the tip. Is there a template for MLA citations? I really (really, really) dislike the present APA cite templates. I was trying to write my own when Lime's request popped up and I got a bit distracted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Citation templates and Category:Citation templates is all that I'm aware of. Of course, I'm certain they'd welcome an MLA one, especially if it's done well. Good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My Opposition: the Diaries of Friedrich Kellner

I have been working to improve this film article, to take it from the Start category to at least a B category. I have followed the "WikiProject Films Style guidelines" to ensure that the changes are in the proper format and with the necessary detail. If you don't mind, would you kindly take another look at this page, and if you agree with the improvements, could you upgrade the category? If there is more work for me to do, please let me know. I do appreciate your help. Thanks, Scott Rskellner (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start, but before I can even begin to get into detail, one thing pops out beyond all else - a nearly-complete lack of references. Without that, there is no way to justifiably grade the article at B-Class. I'd suggest starting there first. Good luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Small point, isn't there a spelling error in the title: My Opposition: The Diaries of Friedrich Kellner? FWiW, the Friedrich Kellner article has a wealth of reference sources that could be mined. Bzuk (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

I will definitely work on it regarding the references, and I will make other improvements as well. And you are quite right, Bzuk, and I am glad you found the error in the title. I have now capitalized the "T" in "The". Usually the word following a colon is not capitalized, but it should be in this case. Once all the improvements to the article have been made, I will then change the official name of the article itself to reflect the correct spelling. One dilemma, though, which you might be able to help with, is that the producer of the documentary used a hyphen instead of a colon after the first part of the title (My Opposition - The Diaries of Friedrich Kellner). Will Wikipedia allow such a hypen in their article title, or will we have to keep the colon? By the way, the documentary was just shown at the Winnipeg Jewish Film Festival -- and it wil wind up in the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, once the museum is built. Thanks, Scott Rskellner (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I live in Winnipeg and may be able to find some sources that will be of use. As for the titles, the exact title using the chosen style of punctuation is acceptable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

I have made a major restructuring of the entire article. I have supplied much more detail and created references to news stories and websites. Also, I have replaced the photo with a copy of the DVD cover. I believe this is now a much better article than it was, and I thank you both for helping to bring my attention to its shortcomings. Please do let me know if there is anything else needed. Thanks, Scott Rskellner (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

I just finished this month's newsletter, if you want to take a look and add anything else you find relevant or fix any errors I may have made. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

84 Charing Cross Road

Small problem. 84 Charing Cross Road and 84 Charing Cross Road (film) have been separated, but all the tags on the Talk:84_Charing_Cross_Road page relate to the film, can I just move them? EraserGirl (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

By all means! Be bold. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, every time I'm bold I managed to piss off people and attract stalkers. EraserGirl (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A-class review: thanks

Thanks for putting this on the newsletter. Again, I will be nominating The Muppets' Wizard of Oz for A-class. Please leave your thoughts! Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I will definitely not miss it this time. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Review response

Thank you SO MUCH for finally giving it a review, I deeply appreciate it. Well, I've left notes on my fixes and my response to everything else, could you please leave a Support there if your satisfied? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly have a look at it again in the next day or two as time permits. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also

I still want more people to come to the a-class review, so I've added the A-class review link on the WP:FILM/Assessment page. Also, I will edit the A-class review page to say for people to come to me when they have an article they want reviewed. Is that okay? Please leave your response at my talk page. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's not okay to put your name there in the instructions - if you want to be active in the A reviews, then watchlist WP:FILMR; the review is for anyone who wants to participate, so to emphasize any reviewer over another might be regarded as inappropriate. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Soviet/Russian films taskforce

Hi there, Girolamo! A good idea, long overdue. Where do we sign up :)? KNewman (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just leave a comment more or less identical to the one above in the link that I provided to the conversation on WT:FILM. Thanks for your support! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about the number of images now being removed

Is there some reason why a number of previously acceptable images are now being challenged and removed? Please see: <Image:Ashanti.jpg> which I had put up on a sandbox page temporarily and was used by User:Limetolime for the article he was working on, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz‎. Another editor has challenged its status (but has not given a reason) while the other challenges and deletions seem to be coming from bots and admins. Whazzup? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

Frankly, I've never fully understood the ever-shifting goalposts of the image deletionists, so I can only assume that it has something to do with fair-use. This seems to happen every few months that they tighten the standards yet again and delete another few thousand. In short, no, I have no idea. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Read over the image notes for the Ashanti,jpg image. Is there something there I'm not seeing; it looks to be correct. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

Boxofficeindia.com

There is currently a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding whether boxofficeindia.com is an acceptable source. As the lead coordinator of the Film project, the group probably most directly tied to the material covered by that site, I thought your input might be valuable. Please feel free to leave any comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Boxofficeindia.com. Thank you.
PS: I have this thing about never letting up on people I think would make good admin candidates, like, well, you, until they surrender to the logic of the situation and run. You may as well get used to the idea until I get a really good answer. Bye now. ;) John Carter (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I did put in a few words, although some followup may be in order. As for the admin comments, thank you for the kind words, but I find little need for the mop most days, and I prize my frankness enough that I am dubious that I would pass muster. And to be honest, I just don't want it. But continue to periodically pester, if you want! Perhaps I'll change my mind one day... :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In relation to this discussion, can you please enlighten about the status of boxofficemojo.com and numbers? Are these considered as reliable sources? Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a question I've had at the back of my mind for a long time. The thing is that those sites tend to have less ability to be liberal with their numbers, since the films are much more publicized, as are their numbers. That's not an endorsement of RS status, but the fact remains that most western box office is very well and easily sourceable. It is much harder for us to verify the BOI numbers, although the site itself does seem to indicate that hard primary sources do otherwise exist for most of them, which to me is a red flag that better sources exist. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain why you've contacted Giro here. Sure he is the lead film coordinator but he evidently doean't have more of an insight as to the sites reliability than any of us here. With any such site that displays a large number of figures questions will arise as to whether they can be trusted or not. The site has stated how they obtained the data in that it is the figures reported by the film production companies. This is enough for me to put an end to further inquiries. If the production company is indicating a mistruth, then that is not a falut of wikipedia but of them. Echoing the words of geology guy last night, wikipedia is about fact reporting, it is up to the reader to personally decide whether these facts are the truth. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that I have no extra insight into the question beyond that of any other editor. But there's nothing wrong with soliciting my opinion either. The only relevance that my coordinator position holds is that the coordinators are explicitly stated as points of contact for editors who have concerns relating the project or its articles. I'm always happy to respond as long as nothing is expected but my honest opinion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)Girolamo, you hit the nail on the head when you point out that the western BO figures are more easily sourceable. What makes the figures given by sites like BOI all the more suspect is that, given the way the Indian film industry functions, there simply is no sane way to predict anything. A great majority of the films produced are by private individuals floating their own start-ups (which they then tout as "banners"). And then, rarely ever is the money trail audited. Most of it is merely ad-hoc functioning and true BO earnings are almost never revealed. The BOI site talks of "trade journals", but I wonder what those "journals" are. I havent even seen any evidence of the existence of these mysterious "journals" except in the claims of self-styled 'experts' like BOI. Sarvagnya 21:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Point about the source being SPS acknowledged. I saw the comments on the RSN board. Thank you for considering the comments of others there fairly. You know this means I'm going to keep up the "admin" pressure, too, right? ;) John Carter (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think you're insane if you think I have any chance of passing. ;) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion

Hello Girolamo. I must comment on what you have said on the discussion. When the site (BOI) was first challenged by Sarvagnya, two editors (User:Spartaz; User:Nichalp) told me that if I wanted to prove the reliability of one such source, the best way for that would be finding an evidence that the site is indeed reliable. The evidence, according to both of them, is the recognition a site receives on the Internet. For this particular site, I've found numerous reliable newspapers and leading websites (The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Rediff, Times Online), all of which use it as a source. Spartaz and Nichalp approved it.

Sarvagnya is the only one who has ever raised any concerns against this site (which is important considering that it's used in almost 300 Wikipedia articles). Newspapers use the site as a source of information, and if they can, I think, so can we. Please see also User:Geometry guy's very important note on the FAC regarding this site. I think it makes some things clear and much easier. What do you think about it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that almost everything User:Shshshsh has said above is either a half-truth or simply not true at all. First of all, editors' opinions (if those indeed are the opinions of the said editors) does not trump policy. And secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever of this site being "widely used" in Reliable sources. The three links cited above are just about all that there is to that claim. Sarvagnya 23:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't "approved" by specific editors - it's a question of policy and consensus. Furthermore, it does not matter where the source is used in Wikipedia or how many times - an unreliable source is an unreliable source. Likewise, it does not matter how many or few editors had raised the issue - a valid question has been brought up by Sarvagnya, and the whole point of the noticeboard is to gain the attention and opinions of uninvolved third parties. Much like AfD or FAC, this is not a vote but a discussion, so it is the quality and not quantity of views which matters. Lastly, our editorial policies do not necessarily align with all external newspapers, which is precisely why RS policy exists. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to you, this site is unreliable? Do you think Times Online would use an unreliable source as a source of information? Good to note that the information provided on the site is very well supported by other reliable sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a misconception of how these things are decided - it's not "according to" deference to any particular editors, it's according to our policies and guidelines. I have already left a comment on the discussion with nine specific quotes from RS and V which collectively point towards the site failing Wikipedia's standards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's great what you said, "it's not 'according to' deference to any particular editors" - what we are mostly in need of is concsensus and more opinions from editors. I think it's reliable, and so do many other editors. It does not fail Wikipedia's standards, and it is certainly not a blog, especially considering that many newspapers use it. I don't think newspapers are less careful than we are. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers are not infallible, but for featured articles we cannot afford to be. Many newspapers also cite IMDb, but our policy is that it is not a reliable source either. Again I will reiterate that our sourcing policy supersedes the newspapers, because our needs as an encyclopedia, especially an online, put us in a position of greater scrutiny over a longer period of time. Therefore, it's not enough to say, "but they are alright with it" - that is their editorial policy, not ours. I'm all for hearing more opinions, but not if the only reason is because no one wants to deal with the issue - I've raised nine specific policy points in question to the reliability issue, and the site seems to fail most, if not all, of them. None has been addressed, nor have any new arguments been made besides the appeal to prior authority on the basis that no one questioned it before, which can be viewed as an error of oversight now belatedly attempting to be rectified.

As for the FAC, the best advice I've ever gotten on the process, and which led to two successful nominations on my part, is this: learn how to bend like a ballerina. In short, I try to address all of the comments and objections as quickly and completely as possible, because fresh eyes are always needed, and oftentimes we are too closely bound to the material to see otherwise obvious flaws. Fighting with the reviewers generally is a strategy for failure - remember, they took the time to review the article and write a response - they are not out to destroy anything: we all have the same goal in mind - a great article. Bringing editors around to your side takes work and sometimes a bit of pride-swallowing, but seeing Opposes and Comments turn to Supports is a wonderful feeling, and even better is seeing an editor become instilled with confidence in your work where once there were doubts. So my ultimate advice, regardless of what happens regarding the RS issue, is to listen, listen, listen, edit, edit, edit, and above all else, research, research, research. Most facts have multiple reliable sources that they can be sourced to, albeit with varying levels of work needed to uncover them. If someone is challenging your source now, there's a very good chance that many others will later, especially if it becomes a front-page article. Let me know if you have any further concerns, and I look forward to seeing the work continue to develop! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ballerinas aside, there is still only one reference to that site in the article. 1 out of 110 ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not all I'm talking about... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the long and very nice reply Girolamo. The matter is, hadn't I been sure of its reliability from the very outset, I would never have fought for this. I'm part of this project, my goal is not to make FAs as to make encyclopedic articles with accurate information. As someone who is very involved in the Indian media, I can assure that everything provided on the site is true. Editors like Tony and Laser, who often take part in FACs, have withdrawn their opposes, and it means a lot to me after months of hard work.

But I'm not only an editor of one article called Preity Zinta; I'm an editor of numerous Bollywood-related articles. I can lose an FA, but I must save 300 other articles which use this site. And the fact that the site is used in many newspapers may not be automatically effective, but it's definitely an evidence, which is by consensus (as far as I have seen that), an important step in proving the reliability of this or another site.

Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your assurances, unfortunately, are not good enough. Nor is the fact that it's been used before as a source. As I've said, IMDb fails RS but is used by newspapers every day. I cannot stress this enough - editing is by its nature about concessions, and not all of them are fun. Our RS and V policies have nothing to do with the truth - they state so explicitly - but are solely for the purpose of giving Wikipedia integrity itself. Losing this source is not going to "destroy" any articles, I assure you; no source has the power to do that to a legitimate article. It may lose some information, but frankly, losing information in order to have the peace of mind of sourcing integrity is well worth it. The entire BLP policy was designed with that in mind, for example.

When I go to FAC, I always go in welcoming criticism - I want to know the problems, because I want to find them and fix them. I almost never try to fight the reviewers, because everyone is looking for different things, and most of their criticism are about making the article stronger. Stronger, not necesssarily more complete. There are plenty of things which are beyond the remit of this project, and there are many facts which simply cannot be sourced. It's always a shame to let them go. But if it makes the article that much cleaner, that much less dubious, and that much more authoritative, then the tradeoff is worth it. (Professional writers call it "killing your babies".) We're all trying to help - fighting reviewers and digging your heels in the sand tends to alienate them and harden their objections. This benefits no one. Quiet, humble, and expedient goes far further, I find. You need them to help smooth up the rough edges as much as we need more FAs. Keep the chin up, but not too high! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeh I will :) As for the source, I think, the more editors involved, the better. When it comes to such a long list of opinions, we should care for each. I find every point very important. For example, Geometry guy's comment on the FAC as well as the noticeboard today is IMO very valid. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wasn't necessarily saying that the website necessarily qualified as an RS, just that it might be OR to say that SPS in particular applied to it without specific information to that effect. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR only applies to article content. But WP:BURDEN does not, and in the absence of information to the contrary... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It has to be said that when I've been doing much work on geo articles I myself have questioned data on demographics particularly in the non-english speaking world which has been distributed apparently by reliable government sources. The site has stated that it is the leading compiler of the statistics or whatever and by the government but in the same way it doesn't transmit all the personal details of the credentials of the people who compiled it so we never know if it is entirely accurate. We just assume that they are done correctly by able people and in good faith and record the data as according to census records. Given that we try to use the best source possible, it is up the reader personally to decide whether to trust what is written in these sources and indeed in what is reported on wikipedia. There are hundreds of thousands or wikipedia references obtained in the same way. The same is for BOI and Box Office Mojo. Evidentally they do have some claim as a source because they are not blogs and have been cited in national newspapers, distributed to millions, but further than this they specialize in collecting data on films. WHy would they bother solely dedicating their time and effort to achieving this if they only intended displaying false data?. Ideally it would be better to obtain statistics directly from the film production company itself but the concern over this really is beyond belief. If a questionable source is replaceable then by all means replace it but the reality is there is nothing that is considered "more reliable" for statistics on Indian films.

The fact is if you are going to disregard apparently "self published data" in favour for "published data", iNternet sources are often compiled differently than a traditional Oxford Press source in a book or something. Whoever the authority, somebody has still had to display the details given on a website. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the difference between what you are saying and policy is that we try to use the best sources we have that meet our standards. Box Office Mojo states on its site that it gets its information directly from the studios, and it also declares the names of its staff. Furthermore, even if we were to decide that BOM was an unreliable source, there are plenty of other reliable sources to find its data from. BOI states on its site that it uses substantial estimation, does not disclose any information whatsoever about its contributors or editorial process, and gives no other sources of its data. While internet sources are somewhat different, our needs for reliability restrict which ones are permissible - which generally means those with transparency, prior established reputations, and editorial accountability. Reliable sources tend to exist in parallel - which is to say that usually there are several. If the information is being obtained from reliable sources, then presumably those can be tracked down directly. The main problem I'm seeing is that no editors seem to have the will to get off of their computers and find some paper sources. It's a shame... User:Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I must admit I do find it strange that there are no books, fact files or anything that cover Hindi films or box office earnings. I was always under the impression Box Office India was the official site for Indian film statistics and in India is widely known and considered one of their cinema institutions. Note Giro I requested that the site respond to me months ago but they didn't but often sites like this rarely answer questions anyway. They did however restore their main web page. Exact cinema earnings to the penny or cent can never be completely accurate anyway; many of them are educated estimates. The reality is evne if we found out the names of the editors who compiled them we would still be having the same converstation as then it would be asked why they are considered reliable editors and then you would want to know all of the credentials. It seriously does comes down to reputation and status in "western society". But you keep saying we need FA's. Yes of course we do, but that particular source is listed only once in the entire bank of 110 references ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources exist. I think you're framing it incorrectly - when I speak of reputation, I don't mean status. I mean accountability and responsibility. There's a reason why Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass don't work for the press anymore. Having one's name behind something is one of the ways that the media maintains its transparency. Yes, we need FAs, but we also need the clear up the issue - I don't think anyone wants to have this argument once every few months as another article using the source goes to FAC. If the source is only being used once in the article, then it stands to reason that it is not crucial to the success of the FAC. So, if it is a contentious issue regarding the reliability of the site, I would drop it entirely. Or find a better source. Period. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well any effort you can put into correcting those problems you addressed would be welcomed by me personally. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Were that I lived in India... I was the only person who took the effort to make it this far towards the primary sources; surely I've done more than enough for an article I did not write or nominate. If more people started by going to the print sources instead of ending there, I believe that Wikipedia would be massively improved and RS issues greatly reduced. Unfortunately, everyone seems to think that the Internet is the only source. It's easy to get lazy like that - I myself have been guilty of it, too.

No, I think I've done my part. For now, I'd rather continue my critique on the FAC page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely about the printed sources. I for one know that wikipedia would massively improve if proper research was conducted in libraries in certain subjects. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits on the page. You have full right to oppose, so do that. This source is cited in the article several times apart from this one, which was removed by Blof yesterday. And the NB is not closed and nothing is clear yet. You are not authorised to decide things but express your opinions. Your opinion is that the site is unreliable. Several editors think it's reliable, so don't start an edit war please. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'll ask Sandy to close the FAC now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have as much right to revert as any other editor. You do not own the article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have, but there is no basis to that as of yet. The site is reliable, and the discussion is not closed yet. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean to say you can't find another reference which says the same thing? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You may understand how stressful an FAC can be, so please don't mind me. You are a good editor, and I enjoyed very much addressing your comments. The source supported the claim, but you said on the FAC that it wasn't a good one. Secondly, yes, there are some films which have BO information only in BOI, though it's not the case. Asked Sandy to close the FAC. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get the article promoted, then I would retract your request to Sandy. Trying to close an FAC in the middle of an lengthy Oppose nomination is highly likely to cause it to be failed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstood. I want to get it closed, knowing that it wouldn't pass. I don't want it to get featured. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Whats going on?? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I very much do not understand. Especially the wish for it not to be featured - if you abandon the FAC, I feel confident that other editors will step in to either finish this one or re-nom. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is virtually there. Its come so far, can it be impossible to achieve an FA with this article? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you acknowledged BOI being reliable? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've acknowledged that I won't continue to contest it at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel you're too angry with me for no reason at all. Just an aside note. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so much anger as frustration. I don't think there's much to be said that would make a difference, though. That is entirely the problem. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Frustration was what I felt when my edit was reverted with no basis (even then; the discussion was not closed). "They are all equal" - this is a view of mine and it really has nothing to do with you. You're one great editor. I admired the way you were daily assessing film articles (my watchlist was getting full with your username). And your messages are written brilliantly. I really have no other words now, because they cannot express what I actually want to. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)