I was curious. In the Jurassic Park score article, you changed the name to soundtrack.
I was curious as to why wikipedia uses an incorrect term. Calling it a soundtrack is a misnomer. Soundtrack can apply to anything really that is sound and tracked into something.
A musical "score" has only two meanings. The actually written notes, and the recordings/music.
Also, a lot of times today, you will see a release of a films "Soundtrack" AND "Score" on separate discs. Such as Shrek 1 or 2. On the "soundtrack" you'd get the songs in the movie such as 'Funky Town' or 'Livin' la Vida Loca,' but on the "score" you'd get the Harry Gregson Williams orchestral music.
I was just wondering why Wikipedia chooses to use the incorrect term. Also, willthis cause probelms with the article because the article is not just about the "Album" (which btw is the correct term for what music is released in this case), but it also about the score. Will the article need to be restructured into two separate articles now?
Thanks for the help -- 70.119.50.167 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I was actually going to do that myself eventually. Feel free to start that, and since we're on the topic, you can go ahead and do the same for The Dark Knight (though I'd mention your intentions on the talk page since there's a whole bunch of eyes on that particular article). I'd probably suggest stitching the Production section and Snyder's vision section together, but move the Casting subsection information to be under Cast, maybe with the Acting subsection information as well. The information isn't in chronological order, so watch the multiple-reference IGN citations when you move stuff around. I'll give you a hand when I have the time to fully dedicate myself to an article. Kind of in the midst of finals now; with Wikipedia as my "break" activity. -- Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the narrator information should be placed at the end of the second paragraph of the Production section, since the narrative device is an exception to the shot-for-shot adaptation. Plus, where the information is now is out-of-universe compared to the descriptions of the other characters. What do you think? — Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that section... Sheesh. Uthanc 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Howdy! I noticed that you assigned some project importance ratings to various trek film articles. What criteria did you use? I noticed that the importance ratings happened to match the popularity of the films in question, which would seem to be an odd scale to use. I expected the wikiproject importance ratings to go more along the lines of, say, a film gets a high importance rating because many people saw it, it made X million, is a cornerstone of the franchise, etc etc etc while an episode or an article about a planet that's mentioned twice might merit low importance. If I'm barking mad and my perception of reality is constrained only by the physical reach of my straitjacket, let me know. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your review, I've added fairuse rationales to each screenshot image, as requested. Bob talk 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:CraigandCampbell.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.
Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Which one is Wilson? The one in the black shirt? Jkelly 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made the (hopefully final) edits. -- Scorpion 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you should ask on the talk page. I personally feel that the villains are unique enough to be separate from the Production section, as each character was specifically tracked by movie news aggregators. It's kind of hard to foresee what setup the article would benefit from, since the chronological news development of the villains would probably overlap a lot. The Production section could probably be improved a la 300, perhaps. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's occurred to me that there has never been a discussion involving this articles status. I don't think we've ever issued it to a peer review let alone a Good Article review. It doesn't matter if the film is yet to be released, because Lost is a featured article that is still on the air. Have you ever thought about sending the article in for a peer review? I think a few tweaks to the format (which is being taken care of right now) are the only thing that should hold us back from a peer review. I think it would be good to get some outside views on the article's status. What do you think? Bignole 16:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, they weren't the only ones to get the picture, because I didn't see it on that site. I'll do some digging when I get home (seeing as I can access more sites there) and see what I can find. Other than that, the only thing I could think of would be to request a copy without the watermark from that site, but it's highly unlikely they'll give it to us. I'll see what I can find. Bignole 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wiki-newbie, I love Monty Python and all their films. Yet giving Top importance to Monty Python and the Holy Grail is IMO a bit extreme. I mean look at the other Top films in Category:Top-importance film articles. IMO, High is more realistic. Hoverfish 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I replied to a post you made on that page. Cbrown1023 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the section title "Tie-ins". What do you think we should change it to? Or do you think it should just go under the reception section? Cbrown1023 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Good morning,
I noticed that you awarded an 'A class' assessment to the Gun violence in the United States article. It is my understanding that the article was undergoing 'GA class' nomination at the time, and thus cannot be an A class article (as A class is above GA class).
I later discovered that the A class rating given meant that the article was not awarded its GA class status despite meeting the criteria for it (according to the GA review page).
Therefore, i have removed the A class rating and given the article its true GA class rating as that is the one it has passed. A class rating require discussion prior to awarding in order to ascertain whether the article truly diserves the rating, and I could find no such discussion regarding the rating you awarded. In particular, there was no attempt to contact the wikiproject (that I can find).
Please bare in mind that, while i have searched everywhere i can think of for discussion relating to and approving of the A class status, I may have missed something that explains it all, and if this is the case then i apologise profusely and would be grateful if you could direct me to it.
However, in the mean time, if I may, I would suggest that the proper channels be observed when rating articles. If you are interested in rating, or working on, Law enforcement related articles, then please visit the project page.
Kind regards,
SGGH 11:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It can be arranged, I will get back to you when I get the Pictures. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006
Yeah, you do, want an Image of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest for now? Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006
I'm uploading a new one where Jack escapes already though, I guess that might still help. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006
Good job on finding and uploading the image to Jack's Page. Click my User-Name to find more. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006
I may have the pictures tommorow, or possibly the next day. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 18, 2006
Yeah, I've been busy, should have them by Monday at most. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 23, 2006
Sorry about not having them, I just got a New Copy so Images Soon. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006
The Images are up, enjoy them. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006
Did you like them? Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006
Thanks for the advice, and how was your Christmas? Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006
I know, don't worry. Want any other Pictures? Obi-WanKenobi-2005 December 26, 2006
I am not vandalising that page I am trying to make it readable with good English without your endless lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Textbook ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Get your comment, but have you read the way your articles sound? They are boring and lack eloquent and cohesive prose. It's good to have a mixture of text with the tables too - it makes the article as a whole more interesting!-- Textbook 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Look in a real encyclopaedia! I don't think there is only text there do you? Using the tables for the cast list make it appear much more clear - what's going to happen when the cast list gets extended? A long list of names all down the page? Very encyclopaedic! -- Textbook 18:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed. Seems like a better measure than guessing the importance of these upcoming films. I'll implement the same for any upcoming film articles you might've missed. Might want to mention something briefly on the SM3 talk page explaining your change briefly. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute here. I think group consensus already decided the SM3 importance rating should be mid-level. And if I'm not mistaken, I don't remember you joining this discussion prior to lowering the rating. Do you think it's fair to come along and change it based on your own asumptions, without joining the debate? Until you discuss this with the other editors, I'm changing the rating back. Let's try to avoid an edit war. I think for now the facts are on my side. Thanks. Veracious Rey 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wiki-newbie, if the only reason you failed Battle of Beruna Ford was due to its lack of fictional present tense, I've fixed that and I'd urge you to reevaluate. It seems I overlooked these (six or so occurences, just in the first three paragraphs) during my addition of references. Thanks for your time! -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll fuck you at work on a condensed version of the plot for you. Do you want me to leave it with you, or place it in the Talk page? Basically I'll make it really condensed and then those that work on the page regularly can decide how to improve it, rewrite it for better wording, include something that may be more necessary, or decide something else can be taken out. Bignole 19:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw that, but I haven't seen anything since I last posted to it (the religion I mean). If you want to drop your plot in there, ok. Have you read what is there? Bignole 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've got those images for you. Those were the best images I could get; most of the time people were obscured by a horse or something.
By the way, I'm not really working on Alien or even paying much attention to it. I'm actually working on this film. Have you seen it?-- Dark Kubrick 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've had that problem lately. I get all gung-ho on an article, but school and real life and everything usually keeps me from working on Wikipedia. But now I think I can see Memento all the way to FAC, since I'm on Christmas Break right now and don't really have anything to keep me too busy. By the way, are you planning on sending LOTR to FAC anytime soon?-- Dark Kubrick 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ProtoIronhide.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MovieOptimusCar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In the future, please don't use the {{ merge}} tag, it is confusing. {{ mergeto}} and {{ mergefrom}} are much more intuitive and also have the added benefit of both of them pointing to the same talk page for merge discussions. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the review of the Green Day article, however I would ask that you clarify something so I can continue to work on the article. You said to "Create an introduction to the 'Other Projects' main article." Do you mean the article or section? It says article but I'm not sure how that could affect the decision for the Green Day article itself. Also it seems that there is already an introduction in the article. Is that not sufficient? Either way your clarification is greatly appreatiated as we try to further improve the article. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You can go ahead and put the citations in that. Just make sure all the attributes are filled wherever possible, order the citations by date, and leave the accessdate= blank until it's actually used in an article. Got any suggestions for additional sci-fi / fantasy / superhero films for the subpage? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this site, but Comics2Film is a good site for, well, film adaptations of comics. They keep headlines, even for films that never entered production. You can see a Batman vs. Superman section in the Alpha Index. There's also an insane amount of pages of headlines for the first two Spider-Man films... definitely something I'd use if we ever get to fix up the previous films' articles. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You failed this article solely on the basis that it was a current event article. It no longer is, so please re-evaluate the article. It should inherit it's backlog date. -- Ingoman 12:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for the extra bracket on my user page. Secondly, is there any chance you can provide me with excerpts about Iron Man from Empire magazine? I'm trying to expand the production history of the page, particularly using Access World News. I've already found out that Twentieth Century Fox had desired to develop it as early as 1996. I'm trying to trace the headlines from back then up to now. Also, about the article, do you think that the casting information would work better being inserted into the production section? Ace did that at SM3 with decent effect that allowed a bit more exploration of the characters' development on that particular page. Just wanted to know your thoughts about doing the same for Iron Man. (Also, don't know if you're a Voltron fan since you like Transformers, but I've cleaned up the Voltron film article.) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL, yeah. I never really watched it, just a hair before my time (and I didn't watch the reruns) but I remember it. It reminded me of Power Rangers, or better their original overseas incarnation Super Sentai. I mean, Power Rangers had their Zords, and Voltron is this giant robot that was formed by the morphing of smaller robots. Bignole 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
left a note on the talk regarding the production thing, hope we can figure it out, I don't see a contradiction in the timeline, respond there, thanks man. and Happy NYE. ThuranX 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Given where? Amazon doesn't give it as Madagascar, and are we saying we should rely on people's memories over a reliable website? I mean, if there are other places that say so, cool, that just means Amazon was wrong in their plot summary, but if not, than we are using a person's word over a source. Bignole 16:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The page could definitely be shaped up. I'm, ah, a bit occupied with female company during the break now; she came on the 29th, so that's when I stopped my wiki-editing, if you didn't notice. :) It'll likely be a week or so before I can get back into the editing game. Hope you can do some good stuff with the article. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this page is currently a GA nominee, and since you did a great job of helping me get Homer Simpson to GA shape, I was wondering if you could also assess this page, which has been up for about a week. Thanks, Scorpion 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the tags be left until an admin actually closes the survy on Talk: Superman (Kal-L)? — J Greb 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Cbrown1023 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to The Lord of the Rings ( diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 11:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fellowshipreunited.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions on improvement. I've already put the wheels in motion to bring those three things up to par - obviously, not done yet, but they're all better than they were. Any updates on your opinion are, as always, greatly appreciated. Theirishpianist 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you were aware, but I had been developing Avatar for a while. Looks like in my absence, there's been some new information that came out, and the page's been turned upside-down by a user with information that's probably correct, but it's uncited and oddly sectioned -- "About Avatar", "Production Begins", and "Years of Pre-Production". He tried to revert back to his version with a fake edit summary ("corrected link"), so I question his ability to engage in discussion. I want to update Avatar with whatever latest information there is, but not in the style with which the user tried to edit the pagee. Any chance you can help out in citing the information or informing the user what needs to be done to make the content acceptable? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you had to fail the article immediately and not give me a little time to fix the page. The summary article is the best one I could find and I think it summaraizes the episode be showing him trying to be cool but being shunned by a pair of teens. I lengthened the lead, but not a lot can be done to lengthen it without providing a larger plot summary. And are you saying I should merge hidden jokes and cultural references, because the two sections are completely different... I think this page is far better than all the other episode pages, and I have worked hard to eliminate the trivia and make sections for it, and I have shortened the CR quite considerably. -- Scorpion 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What precisely is your problem with the Indiana Jones page? Mikejstevenson 19:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Now don't you think that's a little more productive that just immediately reverting the work and making a spurious claim about fair use? I think so. Now lets try to move forward.
Firstly, I don't see any text there that can be called non-fair use or needs citations - do you? Regarding the images, I don't necessarily disagree with you that there are too many. I'll look at removing one or two. Regarding their fair use rationale, each one was already used in another Jones related wikipedia article (i.e. no new images) Mikejstevenson 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm getting the message that you really couldn't care less about collaboration. Fair enough - obviously no point in discussing things with you. Lets see who has more time on their hands, because I can see some revert wars on the horizon.
Mikejstevenson
20:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Users who cover their own... yeah. I dislike such comment removal to "build" a false rep, as you can see in the edits. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That link hardly seems encyclopedic, is it really relevant if johnny depp "enjoyed dressing up as a pirate" i believe it is completely inappropriate for the article, feel free to give me your view on my talk page if you disagree/agree. Plebmonk 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the Access World News that I use. I log in through my university's library website, so I don't know if you're able to access what I can.
The News Tribune: "'Thin, derivative and schlocky' is how [Kathleen Kennedy] characterizes much of what passes for family films today. She said she wants to help change that, and added that Paramount and its new parent company, media conglomerate Viacom, also are eager to become more involved in making quality family-oriented films. Already, Kennedy is pushing forward with plans to make a film based on C.S. Lewis' classic "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and Roald Dahl's popular 'BFG.'" [1]
Los Angeles Daily News: "Filmmaker Frank Marshall reveals that he and his wife, Kathleen Kennedy, are being forced to push back production of the big-screen adaptation of C.S. Lewis' children's classic The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe because 'all the big stages in England - where we plan to shoot - will be filled until the end of next summer. George Lucas is shooting his new 'Star Wars' there, 'James Bond' is shooting there - and we simply have no choice except to change our plans.'" [2]
Entertainment Weekly: "There is a long and murky saga that explains why Hollywood hadn't yet turned Wardrobe into a movie, aside from a 1979 made-for-TV cartoon. Said saga is headlined by producers Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall, who during the 1990s gave it a shot with assorted filmmakers at different studios, but were undermined by various factors: expense; inadequate F/X; and, according to whispers, disagreements with Lewis' estate over creative choices. Bottom line: no movie." [3]
That's all I could find. Hope that helps. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
please look at the disscussion on the rating page. I have brought up the question of if A is above GA, then shouldn't all A articles need to be GA articles? Phoenix741 17:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw that u changed the image back to the 3D image. I am not sure if you saw this, but there is a really big discussion going on, i honestly am ok with what you did, just thought i would let you know. Phoenix741 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I like what you did with the section, adding the bits about Ridley Scott. But I think the section should remain Script development. If you look at the actual Script development article you'll notice they moved the Development (film) article over to there to have less ambiguity because it could mean the development of film in a lab, etc... Overall, Development is too vague and Script development isn't strictly the domain of the writer and is considered the step before Production. Well, see the article, but I think should remain as Script development.- BiancaOfHell 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)