User talk:Cburnett/Movies

June 17, 2005 archive start

Moving film stub

I've been moving the film stub message to the middle of the category list because the film stub also creates a category listing. I've been trying to keep categories in alphabetical order, so I moved the stub to the middle of the category list. Why is this a problem? I'll stop until I hear back from you. While we're on the subject, I have some questions thay you may be able to answer:

1) Why is the tag "film stub", but the category is "movie stub"? It seems as though "film" is the better choice as "movie" is an Americanism.

2) Why are some film diretors in categories by country and others are just in the category for directors. I think every director should be in the directors category, and also in categories for each country. Both would be useful.

--Samuel Wantman 02:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the category name. There's (good?) reasons why I think {{film-stub}} should not be mixed with categories:

1) It's theoretically a temporary category until made a non-stub, so not too much effort need be added to make it alphabetical with the categories

2) If it's essentially located in a variable place it makes it that much harder to find (not that it's much harder, but for order/structure's sake)

Until I realized you had a reason for moving them, your moving them seemed like just random moves. Having editting thousands of movie articles, I've seen (and subsequently made my policy) the stubs not listed within categories.

To answer your questions: 1) Originally I believe the template was named {{movie-stub}} and {{mov-stub}}. Another one was added, {{film-stub}}, to address the name variation. If you look at Category:Movie stubs you'll see the preferred is now {{film-stub}} with a request to change the older names to the new. So I guess "Movie stubs" is leftover from that. I'd think the template could be changed touse "Category:Film stubs" without much argument.

2) I agree. As far as I'm concerned, all applicable categories should be added to any article.

Cburnett 03:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Filmography tables

I see you've presented Liam Neeson's filmography in a table. Are sure we want to start doing this? It takes up a lot of room and looks pretty awful. Lists do the job fine and can be integrated into the text. What gives? BTW nice work on the Academy Awards categories! Jihg 19:10, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've actually used the same table format for several other fimographies as well as for numerous lists (see the history of this one for how much the table improved it: before and current). I haven't had a single revert or change to any of them (or none come to mind). I've certainly had no discussions/debates about it. Generally, repeatative data is better presented in a table format and particularly for multi-columned data where the lack of a table makes seperation of data much harder.

Though the particular style of the table is easily up for debate (I've been thinking of making a template just to keep the style consistent and easily modifiable) but I think the need of a table is still there. Flipping back and forth between revisions of Liam's filmography shows drastic improvement in readability. Without closely inspecting it in list format, you probably won't realize that some movies have "as Oskar Schindler" and some are just "Will". The table provides a more consistent means of presenting repeatative data.

Re: academy awards. Thanks. It's been countless hours so far and it'll be numerous hours just to finish it. Then there's all the other awards. If I didn't do some clean up and disambiguation for each article, I'd much like a bot to do the work. But I think it'll be worth it in the end.

Cburnett 19:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree about tables in general, but I still don't like the look of the filmography tables. They disrupt the 'flow' and readability of the article (not that Neeson has much to disrupt). Maybe you could make the style a bit 'softer' and float them to the side. Also they look better without the notes column, so you could leave that to the main text and stick to year/film/role. Jihg 01:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm open to any implementable ideas you have. :) "Softer" and "float" aren't really quantifiable, if you know what I mean. Please feel free to draft an example here or somewhere. I definitely would like to make the tables friendlier and I'd like input. Personally, they don't bother me so I'm not sure how to gauge your aesthetic taste. I appreciate any help you can give. Cburnett 03:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Around the World in 80 Treasures

So glad that someone else has been watching and enjoying this series. Cruickshank's such an enthusiastic and interesting presenter, he really conveys his excitement for seeing these incredible places... and just makes me want to travel even more! - MykReeve T·C 10:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I find myself wishing there were more than 10 episodes. For every treasure he visits I'm sure there are literally millions of people watching the show that haven't and never will see it in person. Cburnett 13:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen any of his other shows? The specials where he went to Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel to look at how the museums and buildings of those countries have been affected by warfare were really superb. It's interesting - I like Michael Palin's travel series too, but Cruickshanks' have that additional element that he's so very interested in the culture and architecture of the places he visits. And, as for the treasures themselves... I'm up to 17! - MykReeve T·C 17:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually...I haven't. First time I've even heard of him...but I don't live in the UK so I guess I have an excuse... Cburnett 04:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

South Park

"Stevie, read Wikipedia:Section#"See also" line or section where it says "or in the case of a link that many readers are likely to follow instead of reading the article" **instead**"

I don't see how this applies in this case. I highly doubt there's many people in search of the "South Park Republican" article instead of "South Park." I think my position is correct, but I'm not interested in an edit war over it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:20, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Tyler Moore

I see you're changing redirects right now. I'm sorry to stomp on your toes, but I've moved the page to The Mary Tyler Moore Show, since that is its correct name. Mike H 08:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

IMDB says "Mary Tyler Moore" and tvtome says "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" and I see you changed the intro to the article Mary Tyler Moore. Do you have something more authoritive? Cburnett 08:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

See the Mary Tyler Moore talk. Did you ever watch this show when you were a kid? Mike H 09:10, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dup links

Hi there! I noticed that you are restoring the duplicate links in the Years in television articles. Actually, I put a lot of effort to make sure that there are no duplicates. While normally it is not done in lists and other articles in tabular/similar format, the main reason I did it there was to alert the readers that there is a reference to those unlinked show somewhere above. When a show is not linked from the main list, it means there is something important in the Events section. Overall, it enhances the reader's experience.

I am sorry I cannot debate this with you if you disagree because I will be away for a week, but I'll be more than glad to discuss it after I return. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 05:09, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the whole missing-link-so-there's-an-event-above assumes that someone *wants* to look above to find a link to the article. This is one of the reasons that tabular data should have each and every instance linked. Most of the time if you're reading through a table of data, you want to use the data when you find it. If Days of our Lives doesn't have a link, then you *have* to go find the link or type "Days of our Lives" in the search box and hope you didn't mistype. Additionally, what if someone else adds an event and doesn't remove the link from below? Then your whole scheme is foiled.

This is a classic debate on linking style and I guess we won't get very far rehashing it. Might I suggest, instead of using links, to find a graphic to use next to the list of television shows? Perhaps a small star or something? I think marking them to show they have a related event above is a worthy thing to do. I just disagree with using links. It'd be much better to use an inclusive-marker instead of a missing-marker: meaning that adding a star is more than likely to achieve your goal (and mine I guess) than deleting the link. Besides, making it an inclusive-marker means people are more likely to understand what you're doing rather than not (I certainly didn't until you just explained it above). Cburnett 05:47, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the whole scheme is not foiled for the only reason that I've been exercising a really anal approach to keeping the articles links unduplicated :) (just see the histories). But yes, you are right about the benefits of the unlinking all instances except the first also being the weak side of the scheme. It is convenient and inconvenient at the same time, depending on what you need.

Little markers are in fact a great idea. I will most definitely look into it when I return (plus, I had some other ideas about organizing the "Shows" section, which is, especially for the more recent years, disastrously long and unstructured). If you have any other suggestions, definitely leave me a message. Thanks again!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Right, but what happens when you leave for a week? :) Makes for more work when you get back. The better course is going to be something explicitly done that takes little for people to figure out (like a marker next to each name with text at the beginning of the list explaining the marker). Or creating a second list of events that are sorted by show or even mixed in with the list of shows. Cburnett 15:34, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Blade Runner

Hey... my FA of Blade Runner is stagnating this time because of some phrases that are poorly written and a "mite pretentious". Although I agree with the criticism, I cannot really "see" these problems, hence I cannot fix them. Hopefully you or some of the other people I'm contacting can assist. Much thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Years in home video

I notice you've created some "years in home video" pages. If you make any others, could you please put a sortkey on the year category entry, like this? [[Category:2000|Home video]] — that way the entry will show up under the "H" heading rather than under "2" (or "1" for pre-2000 years) in the respective year categories. ---- Dcljr (sig added by cburnett)

Yeah, I know how to do it. Cburnett 04:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Years in television

Hi there!

This is a message to all users who were at one point of time or another actively involved in editing the "Years in television" articles.

I have developed a new format, that I am currently proposing to apply to all "xxxx in television" articles. If you could take a look at 1976 in television/Temp and leave your comments/objections/propositions at Talk:1976 in television/Temp, that would be much appreciated.

Please note that the Temp version is by no means final. It is there to give an idea of the new proposed structure. Please do not be critical of the actual layout; it will most definitely not stay unchanged.

Any ideas you might have will be quite welcome. Thank you for your time.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

July 17, 2005 archive start

SinCity/SimCity dab

Aloha. I have commented on the Sin City talk page. I don't understand why we have a dab notice for SimCity. --Viriditas | Talk 23:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

Cburnett, you big dumb idiot. Please stop reverting the edits on Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, you know it was released in 1988 and you are in the wrong about the year 1989, I am sorry, but seriously leave it as the correct year (1988). If you continue reverting it again, I have no choice but to report you. Please answer my last message at the talk page to see how it feels when you stop. I am just not threatening to ban you, I just want you to keep it that way (my version). -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:58, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're the one flinging the insults around. IMDB & MGM say it was release in 1989. The dates on DVD cases are copyright dates, not release dates. Wikipedia does not sort by copyright dates, but by release dates. And last I checked, you are not an admin and cannot ban me. Cburnett 01:03, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what Wikipedia says or doesn't do and there's nothing you can do to stop me from changing it back to the correct year (1988). Again, I am not threatening to ban you at all. Can't we give it a break? The movie was done in 1988 and was released in 1988 (as seen on the DVD). I am sorry for insulting you when I tried correcting the page. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:06, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Apologizing right after you threaten me (that there's nothing I can do) leads me to find your apologize insincere. Cburnett 04:09, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cartman gets an Anal Probe

Thanks for fixing the links. I was going to do that now. (Ben talk) contributions) 07:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

No prob. :) Cburnett 13:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template:TV countries

Could you, please, take another look at that template? I looked and looked, but could not figure out why the header seems to be right-aligned instead of centered. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) June 29, 2005 22:32 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a left padding of 50px so it was centered...but with a forced left padding. I put in a right padding to balance it. Cburnett June 29, 2005 23:46 (UTC)

Well, paint me stupid the least common denominator then :) I was looking at alignment tags so hard, that I forgot all about padding. Thanks much for taking care of that!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 1, 2005 12:17 (UTC)

May 13, 2006 archive start

Image:Terminator2004.01.jpg

Thank you for your message. You have asked the enhanced image to be deleted, while merging it with the original image. Fine with me. But the problem is, when I look at the orginal file, I still see the original image. There is a link in the history to the enhanced image. But after this one is deleted, this link will be broken. Furthermore, in the page Terminator 2: Judgment Day, where the image belongs, the orginal image has replaced the enhanced image. I have tried to upload the enhanced image again, but this time under the orginal file name. As expected, I got a warning that the file existed already. I saved anyway, but the orginal image was being kept. Am I missing something ? JoJan 10:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is your browser cache. You'll have to refresh or do something to purge it. My upload *was* the enhanced image but your browser wasn't showing it to you because it had it cached. Cburnett 14:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cooperation

Thanks for your cooperation, since I saw you work on South Park I added this South_Park#Music enjoy! --Astrowob 03:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing the DVD cover for the ST movies, check if you like it (should finish in about 15 mins) --Astrowob 03:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coo, should eventually drop movie infoboxes on those pages as well. And, by all means, if you have access to episodes of TNG then feel free to help with screenshoting. Cburnett 03:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cat change to Katharine Hepburn

Hey there, is there a reason why you reverted the addition of Category:Academy Award winning actors from the KH article? [1] Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely a reason why. There are four subcategories that nullify the need to put in the redundant category of "Academy Award winning actors". All the actors and actresses were originally in that category until I subcategorized them. Cburnett 17:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Aha, now that I look at the cat, I can see why. Makes sense to me. Thanks! · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:14, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for asking. :) Cburnett 17:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

1976 in television

Hi there! Someone made a comment at Talk:1976 in television/Temp#A personal preference for columns in biographic tables. If you are still interested in that project, would you mind taking a look and leaving a comment? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Harry potter, full plot summaries

Did you ever get a reply from snowspinner re reasons for decision to delete? I am just posting by own query re what I see as an odd decision. There was much about it being a copy violation, yet the result was to keep it on a different wiki? Sandpiper 14:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing. Perhaps he doesn't want to admit he was wrong? Cburnett 22:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Years in home video

I notice you created Category:Years in home video, which contains articles whose titles begin with a year. If you're going to make any more of these pages (or if you already have and they haven't gotten into the category yet), could you please make sure they're sorted in their respective year (or year-in) parent categories using sortkeys as outlined at Wikipedia:Categorization#Year categories? (Don't forget to start the sortkey with a capital letter.) Thanks. I plan to go through a ton of such pages early next year; it would be nice if some of the work were already done... - dcljr (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And speaking of those pages... Since the early years obviously mostly refer to releases on VHS and the later years mostly to releases on DVD, I'm wondering if we should try to indicate the format(s) for each release, as I have done here. - dcljr (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with labeling that, but one thought: the only time I think this should be needed is when a title has been released in VHS & DVD on separate dates. I'm not sure when all titles released on VHS were simultaneously released on DVD (probably varies with the distributor) but I don't think we need to label them separately.

Also: what TV shows were released on VHS? I know some shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation were individually released episodes on VHS (also worth noting in the lists FWIW) but I don't recall ever seeing season x of show y in a VHS box set. Cburnett 14:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert in the matter. I was just filling in info using tvshowsondvd.com and realized that what I was adding only applied to DVD releases (obviously). For now, I'll continue to indicate "DVD" when I add info from that source. If I get a good source for VHS releases, I'll reconsider the issue. - dcljr (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh yeah busted

I have been using your colors, ive been thinking of changing them recently to some of the south park box sets colors but hadnt got around to it. Sorry it wasnt a peer review it was previous FLCs here are the archives Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes/archive2. Two admins ALoan and Ian both wanted fixed widths and ALoan who is frequently on FLC said FLs have consistent table widths. Discordance 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You can also find your colors here List of ThunderCats episodes, here List of Lost episodes, here List of Futurama episodes, and here List of The Trap Door episodes.

Talk:List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_episodes#Colors_used is exactly where i robbed them from :D Discordance 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning

Curious about your edit: It was my understanding of style and date-linking that it is best to link only the first incidence of dates and the like within articles and tables. Is there a reason you believe in the repetitive links? RadioKirk talk to me 01:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tables are inherently repetitive. The primary reason I firmly believing in repeating links for each line of a table is that when searching through a table you are typically looking for a specific entry or, rather, when you find an entry you don't want to search the table for a link or lose your spot in the table just to go look for a link (multi-tab browsing is great).

As an quickly-found epitome of my point: List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Let's say I was looking at this page and I ran across the Isabel row. Next to it is a indicated that it hit North Carolina. If that's not a link then I must scroll away from there to *find* the link.

At this point, removing links has hindered the reader...not removed clutter from their screen.

The whole — unstated mind you — point is a balance between clutter an usability. Eithe extreme is bad (blue, underlined text everywhere vs. a hard-to-navigate-from article (to which there are plenty and it's quite annoying when it spans multiple pages on the screen). A middle ground is going to be the best. And it's my contention that a table is an exception to link everything useful, even if it's repetitive.

Straight from the MOS:

Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.

If I'm reading a table of data then each column provides valuable information (if not, then the column wouldn't be there) and I don't want to have to go hunt that link down. Even if the table fits on the screen, I don't want to have to scan the table to find a link. Cburnett 02:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I may, even given your (and others') arguments here, the MoS also states, "An article may be considered overlinked if ... a link is repeated within the same screen (40 lines perhaps) of text that appears in paragraphs." Your edit creates, within my 1024x768 res, 3, 6, 2, 4 and 3 links. Granted, it's my opinion, but that seemed excessive, hence my query. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good research. :) Dates are a whole 'nother ball of wax because of the date preferences.

If you talk about linking outside the context of tables (and dates)....I'd be right there agreeing with you. Cburnett 04:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the experience. Next time, rather than discuss what I feel to be correct (and why), I'll remember to bring the proper dose of sarcasm... RadioKirk talk to me 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused by what you mean. I'm happy to discuss it and/or make something clearer of what I've said! Cburnett 04:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Good research. :) Dates are a whole 'nother ball of wax..." This read, to me, as if it was written sarcastically—a la, "wow, do you suck at presenting examples!" Clearly, presenting what I found of your discussions on the related subject was a mistake on my part; it served, instead, to obfuscate every word following, "the MoS also states", inclusive. While, yes, the referenced text discusses "paragraphs", it's worse to my eyes in a table, where the reptetitive links are forced into a perspective and, as such, stand out even more. RadioKirk talk to me 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah...dude. That discussion about dates was almost a year ago! I hardly remember having it. It wasn't a sarcastic comment, but one stemming from nostalgia. Sorry for the confusion.

Seriously, dates are a whole 'nother ball of wax since users can specify their format of their date and they have to be wikified to be modified by a user's preference. Cburnett 05:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion on my end, as well.

As a side discussion: how about rowspanning the years? That way it's only one link for each year's worth of movies? Cburnett 05:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, similarly, leaving the space blank in the following row until its next change? RadioKirk talk to me 05:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I just tried that (without saving) and it looks pretty good. RadioKirk talk to me 05:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a rowspan would make it prettier. I'm all about style on tables: the wikitable class was created pretty much by my use of {{prettytable}} everywhere (though I didn't have a hand it the conversion) and see the previous discussion about episode lists and color. :) And I've digressed....

On second thought of the idea. 2005 in film (and other film years) use the wikitable because of me, but I had a heck of a time trying to get it on 2005 and you'll notice I was outvoted to keep plain-jane, generic bulleted lists. One of the concerns? rowspan'ing and user difficulty. So I suppose I/we should consider that for filmographies. On the other hand, at least filmographies are relativiely static compared to 2006. Cburnett 05:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it and saved it. I think this is a good compromise!! Cburnett 05:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that I see it I agree completely. I did make one fix for 2002—Taken was TV, the other 3 were films. Looks great! RadioKirk talk to me 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On that note, perhaps a second table is in order for TV stuff? Without knowing more about each title it's hard to figure out why it has it's own year link. Cburnett 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that I had done the same for Lindsay Lohan, I consider telefilms different from other TV work; however, there's no separate link for, say, "2002 in television movies". ;) RadioKirk talk to me 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Custom TOC

I edited your custom toc a bit on the list of futurama episodes and changed it into a summary section rather than a TOC because some lists have sections beyond the seasons eg south park has the greatest of lists at the bottom. I do think it works well as a start to the list though. Me and Sfufan took it a little further on the south park list. I've limited the coloring to the left-hand column because table readability was a concern in an american football list with colors spanning the whole row otherwise youd have to stick to pastel colors. Ill try find the link to the FLC im talking about tommorow. Hope you like the changes Discordance 21:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

hmm cant find the flc but nevermind Discordance 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried a few experiments at List of Futurama episodes for a few different custom TOC ideas

• [2]
• [3]

My preference is the second. opinions? Discordance 19:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I decided to use the second idea on the south park page too [4] Discordance 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Filmography order

There is an old discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Filmographies_and_Discographies. I have seen this (reversal of list to first to last) done many times. It is easy to lift the list from IMDb, but their reason for doing so is just to highlight new movies. Since chronologies (books written, albums released, plays performed etc.) all start with the oldest entry it is also logical that the filmographies are also so. As such there is no clear WP policy page for this. Hope this helps. feydey 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The (inactive) page says to do recent to oldest but one comment by Girolamo suggests the opposite (with no comments). I see nothing really to say either way. That said, order is up to the individual editor at this point and it's frowned upon to change a page simply to make it inline with your personal style. Cburnett 13:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Which style You think sounds more viable? feydey 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer most recent first simply for the reason that the most recent is the first to see. (It's also convenient that IMDB orders the same but if you look at any filmographies I've done then you know that I don't just copy/paste them.) Cburnett 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Filmographies

Hi, can you point to a policy or guideline that states that a certain format of table should be used? Thanks Arniep 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

arnold schwarzenegger etc

Hello. Please can you avoid changing sequences on lists of works to suit your preference, there is a style guide in use, if you have a dispute with someone please discuss it with them and don't begin reverting/changing article content. Thankyou. Niz 10:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

While i can understand your frustration I am frankly quite bored of repeatedly reverting your edits. Can you take this childish, petty squabbling AWAY from the article space please? I am trying to apply consistency across all featured articles, dont revert again. Niz 13:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Filmographies

User:Catherine breillat and User:Calabrese have been changing filmographies to fit the oldest first format. I think they might be sockpuppets of ZZZZ, based on their edit histories (i.e. Calabrese registered yesterday) JackO'Lantern 17:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts. Mine were running up. JackO'Lantern 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambig - List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy: Alphabetical: P

It looks like I had AWB turned on to fix extra space, or fix formatting. I was fixing everything that pointed to Plane, and the actual change on that page (besides minor formatting, extra space removal) was changing a link from [[Planar|Plane]] to [[Planar|Plane (mathematics)]]. I do usually turn all that other stuff off to keep it simple, but nothing else should have been changed that would have harmed the page. Also, thanks for sending me a diff so I knew exactly what you were talking about. -Mulder416 14:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

January 14, 2007 archive start

Richard III (1955 film)

You may be interested that an article that you created quite a while ago, well, it was a stub back then, has been given a hell of a lot of expansion by me. It's now up for Featured Article status, on the nominations page. Just though I'd let you know. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Medium

Woh, Are you telling me Medium starts Aug 21 this year? If so i think i've just had a heart attack :D! Everywhere i looked it was saying around 2007 etc MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay, Just checked the NBC website.. Glad its coming back soon :-)! MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Heck yeah! :) Cburnett 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dang, the episode listed on nbc.com is a repeat but I didn't know because the remaining 5 episodes of season 2 weren't on the episodes list page. Cburnett 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea i realised there where some episodes missing last night but i went to bed as i was to tired, maybe we should write to NBC January 2007 is a long wwaayy off. AT least Prison Break returns on Aug 21st.. It's a good show to. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots for The Unit

Thanks for adding all the episode screenshots to List of The Unit episodes. Will you be able to get a screenshot for episode 105 and the three episodes that recently aired? -- Gogo Dodo 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it on my list of things to do! :) Cburnett 05:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

About the navigation in List of films by year

Hi Cburnett, I am working in the List of films by year. I have given a consistent form to all years until the 1990s. I have made a comprehensive list of films for each year, which includes all films in awards and top grossing, being extra careful to put each film in the right year and fixing all links on my way. I have also given a steadier year navigation, by correcting all right-side boxes to a uniform way, so navigation doesn't jump up and down or to the right. In May 25, 2005 you have introduced a template navigation that is also a navigation to television and home video. I have seen your tremendous amount of work and I am in awe. Yet I would like to ask you if it's ok to keep on with the old navigation through the 1990's, adding to the right side box a link for the year's home video and the year's television articles. This would make an unbroken navigation to the 2000's. I would appreciate to hear from you in my talk (from the amount of work you do I think my watch list would become hard to follow, if I put this page on watch). Hoverfish 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and suggestion. For the moment I will just use the former table for the 1990's, adding for each year the home video and television link. I have noted articles on template-making but haven't studied them yet. They are very practical (like CSS, as I understand it), but I have to make sure I know what I am doing first. I may then make a round and change all years' navigations in template. Hoverfish 09:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are aware of User AMK152 who is also contributing with the template and making it consistent with other issues by year. Ok, it's considerably bigger than the original box. One thing with this template, including the home video and television, is that each topic will disappear in older years (I hope they leave no empty lines), so as one navigates upwards, the box resizes to include the new media. I like it. It gives a feeling of how things grew around "film" in time. I will get the knack of templates some day, I hope. Hoverfish 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's as simple as removing one of the "in?", "in2?", or "in3?" parameters and that particular row disappears. You can try it yourself and hit preview to see the row disappear (of course don't save it :). Of course, you or anyone else is welcome to start replacing {{TV years header}} with the yearbox and can base it from 2006 in film. Cburnett 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work with the templates. I'm not sure what you mean on the templates for deletion. I'm still not an initiate in the esoteric aspects of templates. So it's all still code symbols to me. Whenever I embark on the journey to enlightment, you will sure hear from me. I see you have a whole portofolio on programming languages. Poor me knows only HTML, CSS and an old version of Basic used in Sinclair's Spectrum. Hoverfish 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you have questions about templates, feel free to ask. Cburnett 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Medium

15th of November, 2006 (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't come soon enough, eh? :) Cburnett 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Television Episode Naming Conventions

Colin, if you're at all interested, I'd like to invite you to the discussion on naming conventions that's going on at WP:NC. I think your experience in dealing with Star Trek episode naming conventions — specifically, the pros and cons of universally adding "(TLA episode)" that you're aware of — would be valuable in this discussion. Thank you! --TobyRush 17:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting of very long lists

Hi again Cburnett, finally some other user saw to it that templates are used for year navigation in years in film instead of the old box and I am in contact with him now to optimize its performance.

I need your advice, please, on splitting the four lists by letters to twenty. I have a simple link table in my Notebook. The lists have gotten so long, that some users get stuck with unresponsive script warnings and they are hard to update. A-D is 136 KB for example. I don't know if for such list issues it is necessary to call for administrators and I certailny wouldn't like to put this load of work on someone else's back. There is no issue of controversy. It's just for film gnomes to do their work easier. It will help also in making the list more user friendly. For replacing the huge amount of links to the new lists would it help me to apply for AWB, or is there a faster way of doing this? I will appreciate to learn a bit on correct procedure for this issue. Hoverfish 12:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of WP:AWB before but, alas, I do not run windows so it doesn't matter.

Large article size should be of concern (the limit is generally given to be 32 KB). I think they way you have it split on your notebook looks fine. Just open up List of films: A-D and copy paste into List of films: A, List of films: B, List of films: C, & List of films: D with an edit summary of "Copy/pasted from List of films: A-D" so people look for the history of List of films: A can go back to List of films: A-D and seek the real edit history. Then just convert List of films: A-D into a dab page with a list to all 20 articles. At least that's how I'd do it. :) Cburnett 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will proceed as you suggest. Hoverfish 14:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for deletion of 4 mistakely created articles

I went ahead with the first step, having missed your point on moving which page to where, and copied the existing 4 lists in 21 pages. Now however, I got your point. I should have copy/pasted on A-D the new content of A and moved it to Lists of Films A. Can you plese delete articles List of films: A, List of films: E, List of films: J-K and List of films: S? Later today, I collaborate with Nehrams2020 for fixing all the what-links-here's. After this we are ready to make the 4 moves (A-D moved to A, etc) and put the linking table on Lists of films, right under the By Year section.

I not sure if it would be good or necessary to have a separate article linking to the 21 letters (and sets), like the "By Year" linking table has in "Years in film". "Letters in film" doesn't sound very inspiring, I guess. The only other title I can think of would be "Index of films", with explanation that we are only giving there films with articles. I have also created the WikiProject Films/List of films without article in WikiProject Films that could extend it to a more general film index (as See also). Hoverfish 12:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not proper procedure for me to delete them but you should be able to get them in speedy deletion.

However, I'm not seeing why you need to do that. List of films: A looks fine. You copied the content from List of films: A-D#A into List of films: A and marked the edit summary just fine. You just need to do the same for B, C, and D. So to summarize:

• Copy/paste List of films: A-D#A into List of films: A
• Copy/paste List of films: A-D#B into List of films: B
• Copy/paste List of films: A-D#C into List of films: C
• Copy/paste List of films: A-D#D into List of films: D
• Change List of films: A-D to link to List of films: A, List of films: B, List of films: C, List of films: D
• Change List of films#By letter & number to link to List of films: A, List of films: B, List of films: C, List of films: D instead of List of films: A-D
• Repeat for the other articles

You seem to be going down the right road so what am I missing? List of films#By letter & number can link to the 21 separate articles just fine. And by changing the current articles (A-D, E-I, J-R, S-Z) to point to the new articles is for google results and anyone with the links bookmarked so when they come looking for List of films: A-D then can find the separate articles. No need to create a separate "Letters in films" as List of films would be just fine. Cburnett 14:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and help, Cbrunett. Everything seems to be working out fine. Hoverfish 20:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the new template navigation

I made some changes in the template as to the name given and to widen the linking areas of single letters (the I was the most desperate). Well, thank you! I still don't find this imp which keeps changing the bold formatting for every page. Hoverfish 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One more detail that could be convenient to change: please, see Category talk:Lists of films. I don'k know in which way the sorting is done, since editing the category page doesn't offer any obvious way of changing it. Hoverfish 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When adding a category to a page you can put a pipe then followed by a new key to sort by. For example, [[Category:Lists of films|*]] will sort the page as if the name were an asterisk just like how Lists of films is sort. This could be added to the template and subsequently deleted from all the list pages if you want. Cburnett 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Creating templates

Hi again. If I edit in [[Template:Guidelines on adding new entries]] and place there the guidelines section that is in each of the Talk of each of the lists by letters, and then replace the section by {{Guidelines on adding new entries}} in each of the pages, will it work right? Are there any rules about creating templates that I should know? Hoverfish 01:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just click on "edit" in the box and it will take you to [5]. Then just add the text after the table and save. Then delete the text from the list articles. Cburnett 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I start getting the hang of it now. Thank you. Hoverfish 08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Years in media

The years in film category is in parent categories History of film and Events by year. The first comes under the Film Project. Discussing in the film project, I don't get any reactions on the years in film. So I go ahead and try to make them more complete, consistent and presentable. Is there a project (or a main article /guidelines) on Events by year? I'm also restyling the tables in the later years of years in film to make the pages more presentable and more (visually) consitent with former years. There are some complaints by users having a bad time with entring data in tables. A list is surely simpler, but it looks nicer with tables, especially with border=0. Yet I also notice that pages with many tables take much longer to load than equally large pages without tables. I don't know if this delay is globally the same, but I do get it here and it is quite annoying. I was thinking if it would be better to create a subpage for each of the later years for the tables of the broad release films, so that a user can link to it if he wishes to find more detail. This would keep the content consistent through the years. I am interested in your opinion and if you think I should post this somewhere else too. Hoverfish 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any project for the "years in *" articles.

I prefer tabular data to be in tables because it's much harder to read tabular data in a list (something I've been pushing for during my tenure on WP). 2005 in film takes only 4.2 seconds with my DSL to download. Not bad. With large tables it is probably more a factor on your hardware than your connection (I've got a 2 GHz amd64 with 2 GB ram so I'm at the upper end so I'm not a good one to ask if this is the problem). Perhaps a question to ask is if the studio and notable cast are worth putting on there to begin with.

My preference, again, would be that older years in film be updated to match the newer years. Cburnett 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This should be it then. I'm only on 750MHz with 448MB SDRAM. I agree 100% with studio and notable cast, but there are some enthusiasts that keep adding them. It's a load on the articles. Even in academy awards, the best motion picture is followed by production studios. I'm not a deletionist but it does hit on the eye. I will see if I can get some interst of the film project later again. I would like to have consent before attempting to disappoint these users. For the moment I would appreciate it if you take a look in 2004 in film and tell me if the way I've styled the tables of Events, Top Grossing and Deaths are easy to read and as you like them. Apart from practical use, I'm very concerned in presentability for the years in film. I have an ambitious feeling they can become a big plus for Wikipedia. Hoverfish 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the tables to have a border. A collapsed border is fine too. Perhaps not for the top grossing films but for tables that span pages it is a bit harder to follow. In particular is when a given month has many rows (like july deaths) it's a bit harder to visually easily determine what is in july. I welcome more discussion but I need to run. :) Cburnett 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will adjust the styling to a thin line border. And one more question: are there template-like-links that can display their content in line with text? Hoverfish 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you mean. Do you mean that I could just {{some template here}} and have text put inline seemlessly? Cburnett 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it may not be called template in this case. Hoverfish 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, still a template. :) I don't see a template used for just test except as a subtemplate of another template. What are you thinking? Cburnett 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is for lists, (like this one). I wanted to make some template that would follow each title and would accept some parameters to display preformatted info. For example if a film is awarded, comedy, french, broad release, I would enter something like {{infoline|Aw|Co|Fr|BR}} and this would display (inline) some bold colored abbreviations with a special background color for each parameter (if entered). Is it technically possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoverfish (talk • contribs) .

Ok, gotcha. Text-only templates are used for various deletion pages (such as {{ifd2}} for WP:IFD). That could be possible but you need to define exactly what you want it to do. Personally, I find your example confusing and would recommend something a bit more natural like {{movie infoline|awarded=yes|genre=comedy|lang=french|release=broad}}. Cburnett 15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint, Cbrunett. I finally got into Meta Templates, so I have some studying to do now. Hoverfish 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Like always, feel free to ask if you have questions. Cburnett 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for statement

Cburnett, the issue about article naming for television episode articles is still under dispute, and has proceeded to an ArbCom case. Would you be willing to offer a statement with your view of things? There appears to be some disagreement about your own views, as to whether you would like to see consistent suffixes, whether you changed your mind on the issue, etc. In short, if it were up to you, today, which system would you like to see used? Consistent suffixes, or "disambiguate only when needed"? Thanks, --Elonka 21:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)