User talk:Bovineboy2008/Archives/2011/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. |
WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter
The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The Big Issue
Sorry but I really do think you're in error regarding the disambiguation -- I know, because it's the very mistake I had made, too. It is, quite simply, not a film. It is an interactive website. So if we need to go with a "standard" disambiguation term -- something I was not aware of -- would you prefer "The Big Issue (website)"? best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It may be that I have made an error. It seems that it is an interactive website, with film clips as part of the activity. I wouldn't mind seeing it moved elsewhere (maybe website) but I moved it in the first place because the article gave signs to it being a film. If it does get moved, perhaps the film categories and infobox should be changed to ones more fitting. I'm going to be going on vacation for the next week and a half or so, but I can get that started after I return if you don't want to take the reigns on it. BOVINEBOY2008 22:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, every webdoc that I've personally seen to date includes linear films as part of its features, but I'm certain there are those that do not. I don't mind at all fixing this while you're gone. Can you please point me to the guideline on standard terminology for disambiguations, to see whether generic "website" would indeed be preferable to the more precise "web documentary"? And finally, as I'd asked you before at User_talk:Bovineboy2008#? now that we know each other a little and you've come to see (I hope) that I am knowledgeable editor as well, please communicate with me first rather than simply undoing my work. thanks and have a great break, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've fixed the disambiguation and redirects and removed all film-related categories and substituted the web infobox. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, every webdoc that I've personally seen to date includes linear films as part of its features, but I'm certain there are those that do not. I don't mind at all fixing this while you're gone. Can you please point me to the guideline on standard terminology for disambiguations, to see whether generic "website" would indeed be preferable to the more precise "web documentary"? And finally, as I'd asked you before at User_talk:Bovineboy2008#? now that we know each other a little and you've come to see (I hope) that I am knowledgeable editor as well, please communicate with me first rather than simply undoing my work. thanks and have a great break, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Guard.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Guard.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 Dude2 (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Rowspans in Reese Witherspoon's filmography
On 17th January, I had added rowspans to Witherspoon's filmography section. You reverted the edit, saying "...can't sort the table if there are rowspans". What exactly did you mean by that? Halemane (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2011 (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 Nettrom (talk), 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) 11:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
NEDS (film)
What, exactly, was your rationale for moving the film that is clearly titled NEDS from NEDS (film) back to the earlier and equally clearly incorrect Neds (film)? As I noted when I first moved it, the BBFC has the [title as an acronym], the poster clearly indicates not only that it's an acronym, but also what it is supposed to stand for. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- In the article you just provided, they use the capitalization of "Neds". You will also note that Red (2010 film) is lowercased when Red in that film was used as an abbreviation "Retired, Extremely Dangerous". Full capitals are used in the article, but not in the naming of the article. BOVINEBOY2008 11:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi: I noticed that you reverted from Dylan Riley Snyder to Ryan Wood as playing the Young Tarzan character, with a reference. I suspect that reference is a mirror of one of the former versions of the article. I can't find any other references for a Ryan Wood in Tarzan, but Dylan Riley Snyder is listed in the IBDB ([1]) as an alternate (as of September 15, 2006), and is also listed in this playbill article: [[2]]. Here's Dylan's bio from his website:[3]. (No, I'm not his mother :D) I won't do anything with the article, I trust your good judgement! JeanColumbia (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 February 2011
- News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Articles for Creation
- Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
- Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Pokémon: Zoroark: Master of Illusions
Removing that from the infobox makes no sense. I agree it shouldn't show release dates for Japan, US, UK, Canada, NZ, etc, but it should show the original release, and the first English release, or readers might come to the article, look at the infobox, and think it never came out in English. The "rule" you are citing is just documentation for how to use the infobox effectively. It doesn't need to be strictly followed. Even if it does, ever heard of WP:IAR? It betters the article to not follow this rule, so I am ignoring it. I am not going to revert again though. I will wait for somebody else to inevitably add it back. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is not improving the article any more than it is hurting. I have heard of IAR, but if we just choose to ignore rules every time we disagree with them, then there is no point to the guideline in the first place. BOVINEBOY2008 14:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- How does it hurt the article to show the English release in the Infobox? I don't understand. This is an English Wikipeida, so an English date needs to be represented. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is unnecessary clutter. And being an English-language encyclopedia does not mean we favor English-language content (intentionally), it means we present information in English. BOVINEBOY2008 14:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- How is it "unnecessary clutter"? It is important information that needs to be represented, and it is only 1 line. Your argument isn't very strong.
- Also, may I point out that an article you seem to edit frequently(according to your userpage), Toy Story 3 has two release dates in the infobox. Why don't you remove that instead? Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Toy Story 3 article currently follows the guideline, the first release, and then the theatrical release in the country of production. The Pokemon film is a Japanese film. Just because the topic is popular in the United States doesn't make the release date notable. BOVINEBOY2008 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is unnecessary clutter. And being an English-language encyclopedia does not mean we favor English-language content (intentionally), it means we present information in English. BOVINEBOY2008 14:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- How does it hurt the article to show the English release in the Infobox? I don't understand. This is an English Wikipeida, so an English date needs to be represented. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I took the discussion here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No external links to Youtube?
I looked around a little and found a discussion explaining why YouTube videos are not desired. It makes some sense to me, but I wonder if the powers that be around wikipedia are aware of recent (within about a year or so) technology that YouTube has deployed called the Content ID Tool?
This is a system that is in place which automatically matches uploaded content to content that copyright holders have provided to YouTube for the purpose of identifying infringing materials.
Some of what's terrific about this system is that:
1) it's automated.
2) it gives the copyright holders multiple choices about how to deal with infringing material that is identified.
3) it can match on only audio, only video, or both.
4) they provide a disputes mechanism.
I personally am on both sides of this system. I'm both an infringer (though not for any monetary gain) and a publisher and a content author.
I can explain my personal involvement more if you like, but I'm mentioning the Content ID System because I'm wondering if the powers that be at Wikipedia are aware of this system? It seems to me if taken into consideration it might allow for the posting of external links to YouTube content.
Here's why.... In the past you didn't know if the person posting a video on YouTube had the right to post that video. Now in a way, it does not matter, because soon after they've posted the video the Content ID System will identify if it contains infringing material (video, audio, or both). Once identified the system will automatically apply the usage policy specified by the rights owner(s). This means if the rights owner wants the material taken down the link will just become a dead link (which I'm guessing Wikipedia already handles). If the rights owner doesn't object to the material being on YouTube then it would seem to follow that, providing the material meets other Wikipedia posting guidelines, there should be no concern about infringement.
I'm obviously not all that familiar with Wikipedia. You seem to be a very active editor/user. If you think this would be of interest I hope you'll share this with the appropriate people. Thanks!
Thanks
Thanks for dotting the categories in my userspace, Articles were supposed to move to mainspace but they stalled and I forgot about them. Thanks again, cheers! Yazan (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Problem
There is a little problem occuring. IP 208.137.161.9 has been going to various cast lists, such as Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers and altering the cast list. I reverted all Musketeers edits, but i'm concerned whether or not he did this elsewhere. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:10 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Searching with film name + lead star allowed me to find that principle filming began in August 2010, was shooting at least through January 2011, and had completed by early February 2011. Might I request a revist to the AFD? Thank. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It was a good nomination or recreated material whose author did not do a very good job of writing or sourcing.. what with his copyvio... so no complaints from me. It did take a bit of digging to confirm principle filming, and had I not been able to confirm, I would have been among the first to agree that it should go. Keep up the good work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Michael. Sometimes these Indian films are extremely shaky and I have a difficult time deciding what is an RS. BOVINEBOY2008 01:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- They can be a headache, that's for sure. If you ever have a question about one, you'll find User:Sodabottle to be a wealth of insight and information. He's my go-to guy for Bollywood films. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Not the point
You win, I'm done arguing after this. You just keep pushing "the problem" away instead of discussing, when I give you very specific information about a specific article. I don't seek to establish the protocol for film/book differences sections in all of Wikipedia, I merely added relevant information to an article that you alone deemed irrelevant without allowing others to enter the discussion. Since then, you have refused to back down and reconsider the information. Perhaps it could have been redacted more clearly, perhaps I should have cited as a reference the book (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, ISBN 978-0439136365) though I deemed it unnecessary for I was writing about it. Thank you for making Wikipedia a little less open. That is all.190.17.208.152 (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
- News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
- In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news
- WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Thanks!
Just wanted to thank you for your prompt response in assessing the article Manhunter (film). I was expecting a bit of a wait, so your speedy response was greatly appreciated! That said, I've gone back over the article bearing mind your comment about the need for a full "reception" section, and have sourced and cited several reviews for the film, both contemporary and retrospective, and am wondering if there is anything further that I would need to research and/or add. Any further pointers you could add would be a great help. Thanks again. GRAPPLE X 21:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Help Needed
Wazzup, since I've seen you on the Wikiproject Film, I want to request your help for check and fix errors on Rachel Weisz's article, currently on review for featured article. Hope to hear from you soon, thanks for your time.--Gduwen (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Americanidiotplaybill.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Americanidiotplaybill.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The Streets: Computers and Blues - Reviews
You removed the reviews I inserted into the infobox of the album Computers and Blues by The Streets. I'm sorry, I didn't realise they were no longer supposed to be in infoboxes. However, it was an effort on my part to compile all those reviews. Could you not have just moved it to the appropriate section? Tommer312 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- If there were another section to move them to, I would have. The reviews are still in the coding if you want to put them elsewhere. The template Template:Album ratings may be of use. BOVINEBOY2008 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
posters of the Chinese films - wikicommons
Hi , please next time use the wikicommons for the posters of the Chinese films. That would also good if you upload the posters again to the wikicommons.
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
- News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news
- Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times
- WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases
- Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news