User talk:Bovineboy2008/Archives/2010/February
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiProject Films December 2009 Newsletter
The December 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Release countries in film infobox
Do you think it would be ok if in film infoboxes we abbreviate the countries in the "released" part? Video games do it like this. Well, maybe not in front or superscripted. To me currently doing line breaks looks sort of...ugly and even if you don't add a line break, long names will find themselves on the bottom anyway. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeAllen (talk • contribs)
- I am not a big fan of abbreviations in general. I understand why WP:VG does it like that (I started out working in video games). They only show release dates for North American (NTSC region), the PAL region and Japan (sometimes Korea), so I think they can get away with it. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Tarzan fancruft
Hey, I didn't notice that this person put all that garbage on the talk page, too. I just saw it in the article. All I can say is "wow," and not in a good way. Thanks for catching it there. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Egg
It's good and WP:BOLD that you are taking on the task of cleaning up those WP:EGG links but I think you are taking it a little too far by requiring such a close match of the text to the target. I've mentioned it on the ProjectFilm discussion page. I would like to draw your attention to the ongoing dicussion of the Template:Official which may be of interest since I think it violates the Egg principle. More generally it suffers from a generic, vague, and uninformative bit of link text, not quite as bad as "click here" but in the same vein of poor style. -- Horkana (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Avatar
Hi. Wondering why you redirected Avatar (film). It's getting tens of thousands of hits from people obviously looking for the extremely popular new film. Why make them go to a dab page? I've added a hatnote to the new film. Station1 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- It makes much more sense for that to redirect to a disambiguation page. I highly doubt persons searching for the the 2009 Avatar are going to type in "Avatar (film)", they are going to type in "Avatar" and on that page, there is a hat. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- You may doubt it, but there are in fact over 60,000 people a month doing just that. Check the pageview stats. Avatar {film) shows in the dropdown menu and many people click on that. Station1 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- But before that, Avatar (2009 film) appears. In fact it is the fourth option when you type in Avatar. The high number of views may be because of redirects, so you may want to look at that. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did. There are none from mainspace. (If there were any links meant for the 2004 film I would have fixed them before redirecting.) Yes, Avatar (2009 film) comes first and therefore gets the vast majority of hits, but the film is so popular, with 4 million pageviews that there are still 60,000+ who fall through the cracks. What possible reason is there to inconvenience them by making them look at a dab page they very obviously don't want? Station1 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't really an inconvenience, is it? They are being redirected to a place where they can decide which Avatar film article they are looking for rather than being forced to the more popular. We shouldn't just redirect things to the more popular topics. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it's an inconvenience to have to look through a dab page and click through to where you wanted to be in the first place (granted, there are worse problems in the world). 98% (literally 98%; check the pageviews for the 2004 film a year ago) have already decided they want the 2009 film; they don't need to decide. If the 2009 film is 2,000-4,000 times as popular as the 2004 film (again, literally), who are we to decide for tens of thousands of people that they don't know what they want? Station1 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't really an inconvenience, is it? They are being redirected to a place where they can decide which Avatar film article they are looking for rather than being forced to the more popular. We shouldn't just redirect things to the more popular topics. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did. There are none from mainspace. (If there were any links meant for the 2004 film I would have fixed them before redirecting.) Yes, Avatar (2009 film) comes first and therefore gets the vast majority of hits, but the film is so popular, with 4 million pageviews that there are still 60,000+ who fall through the cracks. What possible reason is there to inconvenience them by making them look at a dab page they very obviously don't want? Station1 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- But before that, Avatar (2009 film) appears. In fact it is the fourth option when you type in Avatar. The high number of views may be because of redirects, so you may want to look at that. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- You may doubt it, but there are in fact over 60,000 people a month doing just that. Check the pageview stats. Avatar {film) shows in the dropdown menu and many people click on that. Station1 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should take this discussion somewhere more visible? Talk:Avatar (2009 film) would be a good place. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok with me. I was thinking of a starting a WP:RM there, but thought just changing the redirect would be quicker and uncontroversial. Station1 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
So did you guys move this conversation to a new spot? I agree with Station1. Lets move this and get more imput.--CPacker talk to me 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- The RM is on Talk:Avatar (2009 film) BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Frogger Ancient Shadow GC.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Frogger Ancient Shadow GC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 6 — 4th Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2009, the project has:
|
|
Content
|
|
- Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Italicizing film article titles
Re this: So we're not doing it in film article titles? Someone has been doing it for book titles ([1]), and personally I think that if the title of a book article is italicized, then the title of the article about any notable adaptation into another medium should be as well. We need clarity and consistency on this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, there needs to be consistency. I personally don't have a preference, but it has been discussed twice on the project relatively recently, once in February, which resulted in a discussion at the village pump (which I am too lazy to look for) and again in August, which seems to have a consensus against it. Perhaps it is a discussion to be reopened? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. I looked at the original RFC that led to articles about living species being italicized because italics are always used in the life sciences. While I admit there is some difference among national varieties of English as to whether to always italicize the titles of books, films and TV shows, I can think of another area where italics are always used: court decisions. Just as in the sciences, no lawyer would expect to see a court case, even one as long as Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., say, in anything but italics. Perhaps I should start that discussion at WP:SCOTUS and/or WP:LAW? Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Buffysboy292818
I've opened a thread at WP:ANI about this user. Your view on their editing would probably be valuable. I speedily deleted their creation of articles about seasons 10, 11 and 12 of Rugrats, as these do not seem to exist, the episode titles were apparently copied from earlier seasons. Fences&Windows 16:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I am the editor responsible for the material you deleted in and related to the Green Hornet template/navbox. While I cannot find support of your position in the page you linked in as part of your edit summary, I can also find no other navbox to support my edits. Hence I ask you to point out just what on that page does mean "no people in such boxes." I feel the exclusions of co-creators George W. Trendle and Fran Striker from this one (and that for The Lone Ranger) to be conceptually indefensible in the most literal sense of that word, whatever general regulation, rule or guideline might arbitrarily work against them. (I hereby add your talk page to my watchlist pending the outcome of this discussion, so you can respond right here and I'll be informed of it.) --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do think the creators should be included, sorry about that, but general writers or producers, or even directors shouldn't be in navigation boxes. See the discussion here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having read that discussion, I'll admit that I only included the actors-with-articles who played the Hornet and Kato (as well as the TV version's developer/exec. prod. Dozier) in order to give the box some substance, and thereby add credibility to its existence; note that I left out the Casey Case and Mike Axford portrayers who have articles. Said discussion, does not seem to preclude a property's creators (again in the strictest sense of the word, not dealing with "line" producers, staff writers, directors, actors, etc.) This you seem to agree with, but would we be violating the regs to put Trendle and Striker back in? --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed that the creators should be added, but no to the actors. You just want to pad the navigation box with actors, which is against consensus. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having read that discussion, I'll admit that I only included the actors-with-articles who played the Hornet and Kato (as well as the TV version's developer/exec. prod. Dozier) in order to give the box some substance, and thereby add credibility to its existence; note that I left out the Casey Case and Mike Axford portrayers who have articles. Said discussion, does not seem to preclude a property's creators (again in the strictest sense of the word, not dealing with "line" producers, staff writers, directors, actors, etc.) This you seem to agree with, but would we be violating the regs to put Trendle and Striker back in? --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I am shocked to discover that I failed to sign my most recent post here, but unfortunately I must admit that in my almost four years contributing to Wikipedia, it is not the first time. That aside, both your reply and the change to the template are noted, this point seems settled, and I'll remove you from my watchlist, as promised. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
2010s American television series group
Just some info. The groups are for any show that airs during that decade. Several shows span multiple decades and are grouped like this, i.e. The Simpsons, Saturday Night Live, Days of our Lives, Roseanne, Cheers, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Voyager, etc. If you look at these shows, they are in all the categories for the decades they aired. Hope this helps. Ejfetters (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is what I thought, but the documentation on Category:2010s American television series indicates just series that started there. Perhaps the documentation should be changed. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I think it should get changed, maybe start a discussion... For some shows I can see where people may say no, but shows like SNL that have spanned 4 decades now have run the entire 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and now into the 2010s. A show premiering in late 1999 for example is hardly more a 1990s show than a 2000s show. Ejfetters (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Can't i write in all caps?
I finally figured out how to send messages on this site (maybe). I want to see that the All-American Rejects get all info, and it feels good to make Wikipedia right, but at least I have a life. Not to bite buddy, but sometimes I wonder about you guys. Block me, ignore me, and change what I edit but I just want the AAR pages to be right. You keep them right, I will stay off the computer. I'm just a high school student blowing time. Sorry to have wasted your time.
P.S. AAR rocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoaman35 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the message. I would appreciate it if you would just not write in all caps, it makes it sound like you are angry all the time, which I don't think you are. A lot of your edits are really good and appreciated, but you need to remember that we are not the Billboard; we do not need to include every little piece of information possible. Again, thanks for the message and if you need any help or have any questions, feel free to ask me. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Heya
Just thanks for the nice welcome ^^
And good luck with classes ^^ GBK2010 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I'm not sure if I'm writing this in the right place, so help me out if I'm wrong, but I appreciate the welcome! Thanks, God bless, and have a good week.
Zachdonaldson (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is the perfect spot. Any questions you have, feel free to bring them here. You have a good week, too! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I also appreciate your welcome. I'm trying to figure Wikipedia out, and you've helped me significantly. Thanks!Atthom (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Avatar Critical reception rewrite
Bovineboy2008, thanks for your contributions on Avatar. Following some editors' suggestions, I have proposed a restructured Critical reception section for discussion here, hoping to try and accommodate a deeper and more balanced coverage of the film internationally. Please have a look. I hope we can resolve this impasse and work out something everybody or most will be happy with. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Got a present for you.
With all the good work you do around here, I was surprised to notice that you had no rollback rights. You do now. Believe me, this is a tool which really comes in handy. Wield it well! :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks PMDrive. I was actually thinking about that recently. "With great [rollback rights] comes great responsibility". I'll do my best to uphold it. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Congrats, Bovineboy, from one new rollbacker to another. Gotta agree with PMDrive on that one ... I figured you had had RB for a while, too. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Why do yo delete information about Telemundo novels?
Why do you delete them? Crew Cast release dates? Why you delte them, can you imagine how much work I have to do to gather all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siachoquero (talk • contribs)
Superman Bob Holiday Edit
Dear Bovineboy2008, I'm wondering why you deleted the Superman/Clark Kent timeline on Bob Holiday's article? For years, a fine-looking box showed Bob's place in Superman history as the successor to George Reeves. I restored it today only to have you delete it again. Is there a Wikipedia rule against such a "graphic"? I'm truly befuddled. Birdplaneexpert (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Birdplaneexpert
- It was decided that succession boxes detailing a persons work are deprecated. You can read more about it here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. Birdplaneexpert (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Birdplaneexpert
Regarding Template:Friends
Can you direct me to where the discussion to do these edits took place? Thanks. Nymf talk/contr. 02:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2010 films
True enough 
~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. Wish I had one my self :P BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing that bad edit on Narnia I did, I was going to undo it but my DSL went down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancraigboyes (talk • contribs) 06:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
list of wii games editing
please stop reverting my changes. the wii list article has had that table format for 4+ years. your attempt to change it with discussion from 2-3 members over a period of 2 months is not enough consensus for such a drastic change. there are people like me who object to your changes. i personally did not edit the page for 3 months so i was not able to participate in the discussion. Gqwu (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
3RR
I have filed a 3RR report against you. Gqwu (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I Love You Phillip Morris.
On this article you edited out the reference. I'm not sure why, I gave it a tidy, you put it back. The link in question isn't even notable anyway as it's a fansite. As for The rules on film release dates.. why just take the UK out. Shouldn't it just read where it first recieved a showing, so in this case at the festival. Would it's showing at the festival not overide the need for the french release date to be in there?Raintheone (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean that I edited out the reference. I moved the reference for the UK release date, along with the UK release, out of the infobox, as per WP:FILMRELEASE. Only the first release (Sundance) and the release for the production countries (France and US) belong in the infobox. Hope that makes sense. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter
The January 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
"Overlinking"
I have started a discussion at Talk:82nd Academy Awards#Overlinking. If you could temporarily refrain from going through other articles in regard to this issue until it's clear whether there's a consensus on the matter, I would appreciate it. Propaniac (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Please help
Hi Bovineboy. thanks for the useful work that you are doing cleaning up film articles. One thing though. Please do not remove navboxes like "Cinema of Spain" from articles like the Pedro Almodovar one. In his case it actually does lead there, though indirectly. If you click on the directors section you will find his name. Even if his name wasn't there these boxes are still useful because it is the other articles that they lead to that is the reason that they were put on there various pages. Also there is nothing in the various Manual of Styles that state that a navbox must lead to a page that it is on. You help in this will be appreciated and if you have any questions about them please ask at the Wikipedia film projects talk page. Thanks again for everything else and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- If we linked on every article indirectly linked in the navigation box, then every article is going to end up with it on there. Perhaps it is something that should be brought to a larger audience. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually that is what they are for - to link articles that are related to film that won't be linked in the body of the article. Since they are collapse they don't take up room the way the succession boxes do. There was a consensus on this several years ago, though I would not be able to direct you to it without a lot of searching. As I say please feel free to bring it up at the film projects talk page and thank you very much for you cooperation on this. Cheers!! MarnetteD | Talk 04:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Sock
Sorry about not being able to help out, I was at work (eight hours away from Wikipedia, dang!). If you stumble across any more, I'd recommend reaching out to a few admins, in case one or more are disposed. By the way, thank you for you work in continuing to clean up the leads/infoboxes and fixing other style issues in the film articles (including some of the ones I've worked on). Your work is much appreciated. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome! Still getting my wiki-legs! TK Heffer (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of SpongeBob SquarePants (seasons 8-9)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is SpongeBob SquarePants (seasons 8-9). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants (seasons 8-9). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
"characters are not to be bolded"
You unbolded the headings/character names in the bullet point descriptions on the Curious George (film) page. Your explanation of the change is, "characters are not to be bolded." Can you please point me to this rule and its context? Because I can certainly understand why you shouldn't bold characters in, for example, the middle of a paragraph, but in this instance they are essentially headings, which make it MUCH easier to scan the page. It is incredibly common and proper to bold the name of the item being defined or described. It makes the list easier to read. Heck, open any manual or book with lots of bulleted lists to see that. A dictionary is a good comparison, though without the bullets. Your change seems arbitrary and in my opinion makes the page less readable rather than improves it. -Dwimble (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- See MOS:BOLD and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines/Archive 6#Bold formatting in "Cast" section. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Bill Freiberger
Hello! You reverted [2] an edit of mine in regard to the BOLP template with the comment imdb is an external link, not a source. I am unsure on how to proceed at this point. I believe the whole content of the article is noted in the imdb link. Is the source itself unreliable, did you revert because the link has to be under the heading references instead of external link or is there some other issue? Thanks --Snakemike (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- The tag should be resolved by adding reliable third party sources. IMDb is not considered a reliable source, but an acceptable external link. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- It was my understanding that imdb can be an appropriate tertiary source for "hard data" such as writing credits for released movies/shows, which would be the case here. --Snakemike (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Technically, no. IMDb is a user-contributed source and even though it is reviewed first, it is still considered unreliable. A lot of times, it is okay to use it for filmographies because the information is already contained in the interlinking articles, but the writers of specific television episodes is not always clear. It shouldn't be that hard to find a third party source about him, though. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- It was my understanding that imdb can be an appropriate tertiary source for "hard data" such as writing credits for released movies/shows, which would be the case here. --Snakemike (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Check out
Can you chack out Shigeru Miyamoto am triyng to make it gA.--Pedro J. the rookie 21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)