User talk:Dr. Blofeld

File:Ankaracat.jpg S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Archives
Aug 2006 Sept 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 March 2007

New category

Hi. thanks for your "congratulations" about Spanish films. ¿eres argentino? yo soy español y seguiré trabajando en la pagina de cine español, aunque soy MUY NUEVO con wikipedia, bastante desastre con la tecnologia, y se me olvida hacer el log in.

I don't know if you noticed, but I started Category:Films of the Second Reich and I put some order in categorization so that they (categories and lists of German periods) appear in the proper order (also in category german cinema). I see you enter films: do you also correct categories of the individual articles (German films to West German films, etc)?

I will finish formatting the Weimar page and will pick up from F (I persume from the category list). Hoverfish Talk 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we get some German academic opinion first (ask the German portal? Oττο?). Just be careful that we don't create POV page titles, or... you know. Hoverfish Talk 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let him fill it. Formatting will follow anyway. Hoverfish Talk 13:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we keep East German films in one page? They don't seem to need a split. Hoverfish Talk 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, keep them in one page for now and we can see later. Have you seen the French page? I may split, but later. Let's see what we get at full length first. Hoverfish Talk 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ok. Do we have to red link so many films? Are they all "needed articles"? Hoverfish Talk 14:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This thing with the red links should be discussed by all of us who work on lists, but in the main project, so we can hear more opinions. I took them off the Australian list, but had in mind to run the list for famous ("needed") films and link them again. But I don't feel confident either way. This is why I think it should become a major discussion topic. Hoverfish Talk 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actors and directors connect to more than one article, so red linking them helps to find in "what links here" of the unedited page, how many connections we have. But a film is just one item... either worth an article or not. The issue of notability and inclusion is still open. Don't think that because there is a silence lately, it's closed. And there are many who would would even AfD film articles for notability. Lists with massive red links is like waving a red cloth at the bull. Hoverfish Talk 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the Spanish as I had it on watch. Good going with the bunch of them. It's Christmas for SPECTRE. The bait seems to work. I wonder what your next move will be. SPECTRE meets SHADO? Hoverfish Talk 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The UFO article gives her name as Gabrielle Drake (see big picture). Could it be you got the wrong one? She surely looks different here: [1]. Not even the color fits... Hoverfish Talk 20:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I sample-checked some of the East German films you have placed under the list, as if it's your sandbox. Some are French with who-knows-what German co-production %age. Some are unknown TV films. Why should we list all this dump? Just because IMDb has it? Hoverfish Talk 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, if in my recent overload of wiki-tasks lately I have accused you of any wrong-doing that was not your work, please excuse me. I will repair the defamation as soon as I get a breath. Till then. Hoverfish Talk 14:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologized at Prolog's page and will do so in Sunshine's too. I just saw your name in the history and didn't check. It's not cool what I did, so please, excuse me. I have 12 tabs open at the moment and try to deal with 4 of them at the same time. No excuse, I know, but still... Hoverfish Talk 15:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

I don't think that information was worth much. What happened to my request of information from the two DVD documentaries for me to help write a comprehensive article? Alientraveller 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just following the guideline Wikipedia: Avoid trivia sections in articles. I'm very sure it won't take any time at all, I write DVD featurette lists all the time. Even if the article is GA, it can benefit from a more comprehensive production section. I'm not intentionally picking on you or anything. Alientraveller 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting it changed. Don't worry, I'm just slow. Let me take my time to respond to the featurette list. Alientraveller 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Erik and I discussed this awhile back when we were trying to fix the Spider-Man (film) page (which we still haven't finished), that the "plot" is not the most important thing in an article. Plots are nothing more than context for the rest of the article. We felt that the page should be layed in in accordance to when things happen, this way you don't jump around from date to date. Production is the first thing, and in there you would cast before you filmed (well, the majority of characters are cast), and then you'd film, and then you'd do special effects (if needed) and music and all that other post production work. Then you'd have the film (i.e. plot section), and then you'd have reception stuff. Later the DVD's are released, along with other post release merchandise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, I just walked into work. I'll read it in a bit and let you know. My concern right now is the image that is pushing the "special effects" header over. I think it needs to be moved up. I'm going to see if I can fiddle with that real quick before I have to do some real work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the information at the bottom of the "cast" section should really be in the "casting" subsection. Even the cameo stuff, because that's really related to casting, and less about the film itself. It probably needs to be written in a way that reflects "casting" instead of "cameos".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of an awards table. Personally, I think the current paragraph is fine. Alientraveller 13:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Becareful with that, because FAC reviewers will hit hard on awards that are rather minor, something that is so obscure that no one knows about it. Also, tables get hit hard. As long as we can keep a good prose to go with it, I think the table will be alright.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We can see how it looks and decide what is best afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I think will draw debate will be the placement of "Awards" as its own section, as that generally accompanies "Reception".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's much better to source to the actual award websites.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I'm not sure what to add. General reception of the soundtrack, or something. We need to be careful about size, because the article is becoming increasingly long.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. I have a lot of work to do, and as for Wikipedia, I'm currently in an AfD battle over List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series, and trying to improve all dozen of those film articles: here's my first start. So I'm not going to be too much help with Royale right now, other than quick suggestions. But I'd work on it, and then "be bold". If people like it, awesome; if they don't, you'll know. If you are going to rework the plot, try not to expand it too much since we already are at 58kb in size.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's working very well. I just don't like the Awards list. Alientraveller 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to go back and remove any peacock words, as I saw some like "desperately". Other than that it's good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Weren't about that, it was a redundancy in the infobox. Alientraveller 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sound good. The writing information would probably be best in the lead paragraph for the production section. There won't be enough to support its own subsection, so its best left there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are working in one section, try and do preview so you can limit the number of your edits. makes it easier to follow, and allows other editors to edit while you are doing your thing (reduces "edit conflicts").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the second "keen" you used because you used "keen" in the sentence before it. It reminded me of Linda Van Der Klok and her "totally"s. If it was further down that page it wouldn't have been an issue, but it was so close I just changed it to keep the sentence wording fresh.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Uttara (film)

Hmmm...I'm afraid, that fact is not that much interesting enough to be featured as a Did you know. Lot of people receive lot of awards in lot of Film festivals. Don't they? :) But, I still believe this article has the potential for the DYK. Can you please add the reference for the statement:

The film due to its homoerotic undetones was shown at a number of gay and lesbian film festivals and opened the Pusan Film Festival.

- KNM ^Talk 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: DYK FILM

Looks alright to me, assuming those references in the footnotes apply to the sections preceding them. You should proposed it at T:TDYK, I especially like the fact about the strategy of shooting at dawn and dusk.--Carabinieri 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Spanish list

Take it easy there. I've been working the last hour in formatting (off-line) up to including 1980s and the other editor re-edited some, so I have to add now his new edits. If you like do the 1990s, but until there I have it all ready in a minute. Hoverfish Talk 15:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am doing the list of Finnish films, checking categories and all. Please, delete the content of the forgotten mainspace articles: List of Finnish films: A, List of Finnish films: B, List of Finnish films: C, List of Finnish films: D so they can be speedy deleted. Their content has already been copied in the lists of films without articles. Hoverfish Talk 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 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 is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Eduardo Paolo Gomez

I've just put a speedy tag on this article you started in mid-2006 after failing to see any independent Google sources or anything much at Worldcat[2]. --VSerrata 14:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

French films

Hi, I am basicly going through the Internet Movie Database at the moment and adding films where they are needed with additional info from other movie sites. Once I have added the pages (or reformatted them in accordance with the manual of style) I am updating various film lists including those by country. I'm happy to help out with re-editing film lists where needed though. --Amxitsa 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Country film lists

Hi,

I don't understand what your intention is with the lists. Do you want to add all films produced in a country? Or 1-3 films per year? / Fred-Chess 17:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bor da, Sir Blofeild.

I'm sorry I've tarried awhile on the East German thing. As you might see from my contribs page I've got alot of projects I'm working on, and wasn't expecting a "request". I've added some of the earliest DDR movies, technically the Soviet occupation, and will expand on the 1960s momentarily. How about I take over DDR and you do BRD up to unification? I take the east side and you take the west side, as we say down here in Texas.--Dudeman5685 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

So far, you have not provided any tangible rationales for any of the photos you have added. Photos are meant to aid the article. Not to make it look pretty. Every photo in the article needs to contribute in some way (and not simply because "it shows what we're talking about"). The photos in the synopsis section provide the reader with the so-called "look" of the film. The photo in the cast section provides the reader with a photo of the cast who's identity they will most likely be curious about. And the poster in the infobox provides an example of the marketing campaign, specifically the poster(s) campaign (which is important to every film). Your photo of Eva Green accepting her award does not add anything to the article. It is not an example of anything. The Filmaker 04:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• I understand that your edits are in good faith, you haven't done anything so far that does constitute as bad faith. Damaging is a rather harsh word for it, but it is damaging to the article in that it is redundant with the poster in the infobox. You yourself said that "this like the main poster is part of the campaign for the dvd promotion". Exactly, they are both examples of the marketing campaign for the film. Again, you, so far, have not provided a suitable rationale as to how the image actually contributes to the article other than the above statement and that the "DVD release is very important an an image showing it is not a problem and helps the article." How does it help the article? The Filmaker 14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Both of the images establish the "look" of the film. The gun barrel image to a lesser degree. However, the gun barrel is significant as it not only is a long standing tradition within the Bond series, but features the new James Bond for the film. On top of that, the gun barrel sequence itself has been significantly altered in this film. Hence the image. The Filmaker 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't feel that either of us are being unfriendly to each other. The only time I become hostile towards anyone is when they are hostile towards me (or they are extremely annoying. ;)
    • The reader will not receive this "air of mystery" you're talking about from a simple photo of Mr. White. If you check the history, I did say that Mr. White was important, however has such a small role in the overall picture that his brief mention within the article does not warrant an image. I understand that he will probably become more important in the grand scheme of things, however as of right now he is somewhat insignificant in comparison to the rest of the article. What is keeping it from becoming FA? Well, at this point. Not much. Right now, I would convert the Awards section to prose as it will not go over well with the voters during the FAC, and get a peer review. I'll need to look it over some more before I can say more. ;) The Filmaker 01:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• I removed Salmon and Bean: restore it if you can cite it. Alientraveller 16:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • • First, let me say that all of your suggestions that you left on my talk page are excellent. I have no doubt that this article will soon be an FA. However, I simply cannot in good faith let you keep the DVD image without a good rationale. I'm sorry, and I completely understand why you want to keep it. You like it. However WP:ILIKEIT does not apply here. Like I said, the article is completely excellently but I cannot let this slip by with good thoughts. The Filmaker 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't say I have a distaste for images. Although, that page you provided for the article that you helped get up to FA status did (I feel) have too many images. But that's beside the point. If you added an image in the bottom half of the article, I would not have a problem with it provided that you had a suitable rationale as to why it should be there. The Filmaker 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'm 5'10". Thanks for that, Lurch. :( ;) The Filmaker 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm kidding. ;) I believe 5'10" is slightly above average here in the US too. But anyway, I completely support your article now. Good luck, I'll probably pop in to help where I can. :) The Filmaker 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale, ratings

Hey Mr. World Dominator, I trust you are well: Well I got my dick stepped on when I added the ratings on the film as you suggested. I hate going into new places (as I've been going these last two weeks) and I'm not surpriced this happened. I ask why does the template exist? I do not think film ratings are a trival matter (as a metter of fact, I can delete half the info on the article with such logic). But if you've read the messages on my TALK page I have enough problems with the most simple matters, "a reference tag" no less. To be honest I'm gettimng sick and tired of all the complete bull shit and may be leaving Wiki soon. My best to you world dominator, I think how you handle stuff on Wiki is a model for many... Luigibob 12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy. You're words are always comforting. But there're not abogados. The only legit so-called abogados are the ones who have a bone to pick with images. The folk we are talking about are wiki bullies, who think they know it all. A good example is that "What wiki is not" tag that was placed after my edit re ratings on Casino Royale. What I'll do is go back and continue editing the Argentine bios, some more Argentine films (not many more post 1990), and the rest of the films om my User list.

I know you'll never give me hell because I cited IMDb as a reference within an article. I mean who does that? One in a thousand, and someone who is loking for a meaningless argument. I mean a souce is a souce and let it go. If a fight is needed at every turn I don't belong.

My best, did you see that most of the Mar De Plate and Bueno Aires film Festivals Wiki sites (where they mention Argentina all have an article. YES! That was one of my goals the last couple of weeks, before I got started on a few American films). Luigibob 12:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you what I was up to. I was editing all (at this point half, left) of the films mentioned in the documentary Visions of Light. As I may have mentioned I worked on the Sony Lot (old MGM studios) in the early 1990s. There was a big screening and the directors came to the lot. I go a chance to meet many of the crew att the party later. If one is a student of films the doc is a must see. Best Luigibob 13:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 19:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. heavy-handed editing of Tibetan articles

Dear Ernst: Thank you for your note about your entries on Tibet and their heavy editing by "Tibetologist". I, too, have had the same difficulty and have found some of his edits and comments very abrupt and off-putting. I believe that if (s)he has differences with someone (s)he should contact and discuss them with the author first before making heavy-handed edits.

On the other hand, (s)he does seem to be sincerely trying to make articles on Tibetan subjects as factual as possible and his or her criticisms have helped me, I believe, improve some of the things I was working on. See, for example, the article on Songtsän Gampo and the notes on the Discussion page, and compare the present page with earlier versions. I think it is now much improved and more factual (though it still needs more work) - and that was largely in response to criticisms by "Tibetologist". However, I must say that, while I applaud his or her attempt to make everything "factual" - I don't agree with all of their criticisms or interpretations of the historical situation, and I do find the manner in which they are made often overly, and unnecessarily, abrasive.

My suggestion to you would be to just restore what you have written and ask "Tibetologist" (and every one else) for their suggestions on how they can be improved (not just wiped). Don't be too discouraged - please keep up your good work, and do not hesitate to write to me again if you think I can be of any help. If you wish, you can email me at: wynhill@bigpond.com

Sincerely, John Hill 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely, John Hill 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Manner of Editing Casino Royale

I've noticed that when editing Casino Royale you make many small edits. This is listed as one of the symptoms of editcountitis and should be avoided. Instead of many successive edits, please try to use preview and combine your changes into a few large edits. For example, I practically rewrote the article on GoldenEye with only about 19 edits in total. I could have used fewer, but it was over a several day period. So, please consider not saving so often as it makes reviewing individual edits much harder and should be avoided per the above linked article. Thanks. ColdFusion650 17:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch!

I just visited the Argentine lists and wondered what was going on with all the blue links. So I started clicking on them and I was redirected to the very page I was already. I hope this is not going to expand. Also the redirect pages have been... categorized!!! I am of the opinion that all these misleading redirects should be emptied, the links turned to nornal text. Hoverfish Talk 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand what you expected the redirects to do, but so long as this is somehow corrected it doesn't matter what I understand or not. Otherwise good going. I did a lot to the Greek list. Few blue links and only a couple of reds. You see, knowing a bit about some names of top actors and top directors, helps to scan the imdb filmographies and find the most representative of their films. Otherwise it's all Greek to most users. Have a good April Fool's day! Hoverfish Talk 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

argentina- spain

There are more Spanish fims than Argentinan. Many of Argentina are coproduction with Spain. In the Spain's list of films, I only have pute the most important films. If you put all, it will be full of B movies, Z movies, crap movies, horrible movies from the 60's and 70's and 80's ...

I've not seen the Canadian list.

I've started to improve the ITALIAN list. Is going anyone to edit that page as the Spain's list was edited ??? I mean, nicer, with actors, genre and importance. Rohmerin 21:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lhasa

Sorry, I have not been very active recently, and also didnt notice your message because it wasnt at the bottom. I looked for it when it said ihad new messags. I was not in Lhasa any time before the late 20th century, whcih is exactly why I want documentary evidence of it. Do you know of any pre 17th century primary sources for the history of Lhasa, it is not my area, but I do not. It is mentioned in one of the Old Tibetan Inscriptions, I think maybe the sino-Tibetan Inscription of 812 but I am not sure. No real information is given there though, just that the place is there. Tibetologist 10:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FAC

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I'll leave my comments when I have time to give it a thorough read.

I read the comment above about editcountitis/previewing edits. While it is neater in terms of edit history to make a few large edits rather than many small edits, don't worry about it too much. IMHO the important thing is the improvements made to an article, and if you find you can work better making more small edits, so be it. Mark83 11:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Related to the point above, you contacted me about Casino Royale at FAC. I'll take a look, certainly, but is there any particular reason you contacted me? J Milburn 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha! That makes sense. Ok, sure thing, I'll have a good read through. J Milburn 12:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi James, I read your message. I'm a little busy with work in WP:SY and other stuff. I'll try to give the article an in-depth read and review before supporting or opposing. I can't promise I will, so my apologies in advance if I don't vote. :-) Regards, Anas ^talk? 13:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know we need to mention it, I remember reading it myself, but we cannot use the site itself. It's the same reason behind not being able to use petitiononline.com as a way to verify controversy over a subject. We need to find critics or mainstream news organizations that mention the controversy, and mention the website that was started.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all about citing a reliable sources that mentions the boycott. People boycott for stupid reasons all the time. I know people that boycotted the Superman film because Bryan Singer was making it. The reason behind finding mainstream news organizations to cite is because it says "hey, CBS is mentioning this controversy, so it's obviously a big thing to someone".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't accussing you of anything. *thumbs up*  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw. I've left comments on both the article talk page and on the FAC page (different comments, so they aren't redundant). I have to go to school so I won't really be on here till after 6:30 pm (my time); so that's like 10 hours from now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Italian

Guay =Cool. I'll work on the new formated page when it'll be finished. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rohmerin (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

OT: Ah, hi Ernst. Well, things are going as usual, on Wikipedia editing just like normal, sometimes creating, sometimes expanding or fixing, and in the real life with the difference in the number of tests, as we have many tests around April 15th. Oh, and if you would like to know, I have passed my First Certificate in English test with grade B, and as such I am quite happy about it.

Happy Easter! MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OT: What road project do you mean? Maybe I know about it, but can't remember right now. Anyway, as I said, the FCE is history, now I am trying to get the Certificate in Advanced English, hmm, hmm, well, I see that I will barely pass C when I will continue like this. Yeah, and to the Wikipedia, I am slowly nearing 3000th edit (2982nd as I'm writing this message). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

OT: Oh I remember, yeah, still thinking to them, but improving those Slovak articles keeps me out of these. Yeah, and some Serbian deleted my 3 road articles in Serbia, arguing that they do not officially exist, well, never mind, life goes on without them. At least I did some in Czechia, and still planning in Austria but keeping postponing it..., but nuff chatting as we have almost midnight... MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Select Casino_Royale From Movie_Titles;

I think the article looks pretty good. You got my vote.

(However, imo, it is kind-of on the long-side though. The plot is good and explanatory, but a lot of the other stuff seems to be a bit hefty for anyone to read it all.) JimmmyThePiep 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On closer look, the article is only about 2/3rds of the page, and 1/3rd is just references! (Whoosh; maybe a seperate page just for references?) .. Anyway, it's good and has lots of data. Google usually hits Wikipedia first, so anyone will find a good source of Casino Royale first.

(If I do seem Wiki-cranky, I'm sorry. My second article I've created is being deleted and I can't seem to convince the deletionists that it's relevant.) JimmmyThePiep 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Conforming lists

Hi, I went through the headers of the German periods and made fixes so they all follow the same logic and order. I also created different list-nav-templates for the German Empire and East Germany, so the flags display right. I'm not so sure if I want to do the 3rd Reich with the swastica thingamading, but it may have to be done to keep things historically correct (or was the normal German flag also an official alternative in those times?). I also started adding to all the lists' leads "a list of the most notable films of...". I think this will help both contributors with their work and the lists from facing criticism as being open to just about anything. I hope you agree. Hoverfish Talk 08:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the German period of 1945-1949 had a flag and history of its own. Maybe we should add this on the note. See Allied Occupation Zones in Germany (I guess you know it though). Hoverfish Talk 08:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am not connecting "notable" with just awarded and the such. It is clear that "notable" is any film that has been screened and for which there cab be acceptable references. That's per general policy definition. On the other hand Wikipedia:Notability (films) wasn't handled correctly and it has been rejected again as guidelines. So the only thing that remains, is our best judgement plus a general agreement/understanding of what we are compiling. It is a blessing if we get editors relevant with a country's (or is it "-ie's"?) cinema and they take initiative in compiling to the best of their knowledge. The reason I raised the issue and made some proposals is to gather opinions (both pro and con) and we already have a start. Please note the remark that not every film a famous actor has played is necessarily worth a listing. You and I know too little about, say, Bulgarian cinema to decide this, so we are bound to either go by sheer guessing or to include just about anything that seems to connect to some important name. I wrote "most notable films" just to give an idea of our aim. Surely this is no precise definition and it's up to interpretation, which is quite OK, so long as the compiling user has some idea of the cinema in question. I went through the Greek lot via the IMDb link. Some fampous comedians I know have done a handful of relly good films and then, just for survival, they have done a lot of crappy stuff, and that's something some admit by themselves. I would be happy to have someone more seriously into Greek cinema check the list and comment on overs and unders. I have someone in mind and will ask him if he's got some time to spare for this. Once a basic compilation is done, then we can check what is added by others and argue about some entries on the basis of the quality of the existing list. Aussipete is starting to feel this by some recent entries, which by the way are not somehow related to Aboriginal films and are very hard to reference and see how important they are. It's not easy, but I think we'll get excellent lists after all. Hoverfish Talk 11:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, about WP Indian Cinema, I would let it up to them, really. Bollwood production is totally out of my field and as for putting order in there is not even imaginable. So I'll do what of the rest I feel I have some vague idea about and if it serves as an example, so much the better for the series. Hoverfish Talk 12:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all there, just hidden. Hoverfish Talk 15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your problem is to persuade me on the matter of inclusion. I think we have to find an answer to this question asked in WPFilms a few days ago: What's the criterion as to when these lists are considered too big to actually remain lists? Because if we keep it unanswered, and the lists keep growing as users keep adding what they like, there will follow more serious questions about them. Since we both put so much work into them, it would be good to clear out what these lists are meant to include. We can't say "Z films, unimportant shorts and independent productions shouldn't be included", as this doesn't say much. I agree that not only awarded films should be included, but we have to somehow define acceptably where the limit is. What makes a good list "with future" is a clear limiting factor. Limits are not bad, they keep things in shape. Hoverfish Talk 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of the Argentine list being put in pages of decades, I think it will help things become manageable, as it does in the Aussie lists, inspite of some lengthy pages. As for the rest, some comments you read from me (when they are not just humorous) are meant to balance some comments I read from you. Where balance is needed is in the way the lists are compiled, as this will encourage or discourage further compiling (in quality and quantity). Although no one has the intention of creating restrictive guidelines, I would like to remind you that most of the compiling editors are going easy on inclusion. Otto has said: "Sir Blofeld" told me once I should add "as much as possible" (that was probably not serious, I'm not sure). This is how you also tend to advice Rhomerin and this is why I also add my comments near yours. As long as I feel a tendency to push for length, you will find comments to keep entries more selective. It is merely to keep a balance. Now about the new color you gave to the general lists by country template... gosh! Why not the standard light blue it was before? Hoverfish Talk 07:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of James Bond henchmen in Casino Royale

I only deleted the pictures of Dryden and Kratt, (someone else deleted carlos and obbano), the reason i deleted these was because they clearly didn't represent the characters they portrayed. SpecialWindler 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Francisco Álvarez undeletion

I reversed the out-of-process speedy of Francisco Álvarez material contributed mostly by you, which can't give you back the effort you lost in reconstructing -- but it may be worth something that we are no longer misrepresenting when you came up with what you wrote. See User talk:BigHaz#Deletion process if you're interested. Feel free to ask me for redress if content you're interested in gets del'd just bcz someone puts crap on top of it.
--Jerzy•t 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Guido Gryseels

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Guido Gryseels, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Burntsauce 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

US definition of Cinema

I think I just hit on a hard spot. Take a look at what my friend Cott12, who has studied cinema in the US, has to say about the way the term is used over there User talk:Cott12#Moving cinematic genre. Hoverfish Talk 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing with the Canadian list navigation? Hoverfish Talk 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And I guess you are planning to change all the other navigations as well? Hoverfish Talk 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting lists

Instead of deleting the lists of Australian films, I am redirecting them to the page they were merged to. This is our standard way of cleaning up merges - and it has the added benefit that no administrator intervention is needed. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We had been talking with Pete to integrate them as 2000-2003 and 2004-Upcoming. But tthe way you did it leaves more place for future entries. The problem with 2007: The films that have already been released should be in 2007 and then we should have a table "Upcoming", tagged with the future template. That's the last thing we had been discussing about them, before I jumped into formatting. Hoverfish Talk 15:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:List of Argentine films

Yes, I saw you were merging the years into decades. The resulting articles are kinda long, but it makes things a bit more clearer in the end.

A few small comments:

1. column title Notability might be better as Comments or Additional information.
2. There are a lot of [[]] signs in empty cells
3. Be careful that film names actually point to the film and not to another thing (Such as the 2006 film Epoxy (film) currently linked to Epoxy

I have to tell you that your enterprise is really enormous, and that you are doing a great job. Good luck, --Mariano(t/c) 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I was hiding empty cells the other day. The main namespace should look clean at every step, not like "under construction", unless you have the tag on top. Yes, I spent several hours today trying to make the globe picture display something as a globe at 16px. Well, I can't get it there. I've tried contrasts, colors, just about everything I know. So if you forget about it, we can apply the same style as per cinema navigation. And its presence will be by far more respectable. Another very serious thing: During the AfD of the US template, we have said we'll pull it out of American film articles and reserve it for important general articles. However you keep putting in films. Don't you understand what will follow? Hoverfish Talk 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in 62 American film articles however. I am receiving emails with complains about it, I guess because I took the time to protect it from deletion. Hoverfish Talk 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) And my words are "you keep putting it in film articles", not "in hundreds of film articles". You keep doing this with what I say, you know. Hoverfish Talk 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about actors (yet), so I won't interfere there, but if it's all right with you I will first write some noinclude text about not using it in films (at the template page) and then I will give an ok to the complaining parties for its removal from films. Hoverfish Talk 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Tibet

Further to your welcome, I have tried to get involved. I just wonder though if you could help me with this user - User:Xiaoliang1? Some of his/her edits to the Tibet page have been reverted. And the other day I asked a question about their edits on the Tibet talk page. Xiaoliang1 responded to my comments. And I then replied back. However, he/she then firstly removed part of his comment which I replied to, and then simply deleted the entire comment completely, making it look like my reply was to nothing. I have though reverted the edits so that the comment is back where it should be.

I hope this makes sense, but if you go through the history of the Tibet talk page it will become clearer. I have no problem with someone wanting to present the Chinese Government view on Tibet as long as it is done in the correct way, and even though some of Xiaoliang1s edits do not appear to be at all NPOV. However, simply deleting comments in a Talk page, I thought was not only frowned upon, but also not allowed on wikipedia, especially when it is in the midst of a debate? It is (purely in my opinion of course) a form of censorship. So, is there a message that can be place on Xiaoliang1s user page about removing content? Thank you. Tangerines 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)