User talk:Bovineboy2008/Archives/2011/March

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.

Thanks for correcting the naming of the Sex Boat article. I didn't realise the error until after creating the article. Thanks again. -- Invisec (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. You can always try moving the article if you notice a spelling or spacing is wrong. On the top of the Wikipedia page next to the "View history", there should be an option to move. If you find that you can't move the article and it is just a trivial spacing or spelling issue, go to WP:RM and put in a request. They are usually very prompt with the moves. Feel free to come here if you have any questions or need help with anything. :) BOVINEBOY2008 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The February 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 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, where did you find the release date for Paradise (2011 film)? And also, why do you remove the boldface from the original titles of films? They're alternative official titles, and should be bolded just like we bold the original names of artists with stage names. Smetanahue (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Smetanahue. I de-bold the original titles of the films only if they immediately follow the article title in the lede sentence. It is kind of an IAR case where the bolding really isn't necessary when it immediately follows the title. I usually add/keep the bold if it appears later in the lead paragraph(s). I pulled the release date from IMDb for Paradise. I know it isn't a reliable source, but they usually are spot on. Although now that you pointed it out, I can't find any references for it through Google searching. I'll remove it. BOVINEBOY2008 23:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I asked mainly out of personal interest as I'm highly anticipating the movie. Still think all official titles should be kept in bold though, especially original foreign titles since they're even more official than the English titles. Smetanahue (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't revert that kind of bolding if you would want to go ahead and restore it. Sorry to get your hopes up for the release date ;) BOVINEBOY2008 13:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the discussion where this consensus was formed? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We should probably continue this discussion at Talk:Inception#Article_title. Gamaliel (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I actually support the move (now, although I haven't in the past). I just you should go through the proper request/discussion process. I know I have been guilty in the past to moving articles against consensus. BOVINEBOY2008 23:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The film was shown to private screenings, like church groups etc, prior to the release. But the film itself was released on 2/25/11. I saw it myself prior to the release at an event sponsored by a radio station. Problem here is that I have a LOT of reliable sources that say it was released on 2/25/11. I also have a movie poster for it, showing a release date on it that I'll be happy to photograph and send you. The fact that they tried to generate interest by pre-screening it to groups doesn't change the release date. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A showing is a showing, whether it is the most public or wide release or not. Please read WP:FILMRELEASE. We go by the first public release. BOVINEBOY2008 02:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misapplying the guideline. The film was released on 2/25. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring sourced facts. The film was first shown at the Projecting Hope Film Festival in 2010 and was then released theatrically on February 25, 2011. I'll be happy to interpret any other sources for you if you need more help. :) BOVINEBOY2008 02:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What sources have you interpreted for me? Um, none. Since you are obviously devolving into snarkiness, and I see that the film project says that the will support ignoring what a dozen reliable sources, and the film company itself, say because the film was screened at a relatively small film festival, further discussion with you appears pointless. Guidelines like this one ignore common sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find me snarky. Of course that release date is notable, and perhaps it should be in the infobox. But so should the first release date per that guideline. If you want to discuss this with more people, I would suggest taking it to WT:FILM or even on the articles talk page. I have no problem discussing policies or content, but please leave those discussions where they belong. I assume that you talking on this article means you have a concern/suggestion with me or my editing, not about policy. BOVINEBOY2008 03:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I just moved Yellow Submarine (film) to Yellow Submarine (1968 film) since we have Yellow Submarine (2012 film), which is set to be released. You seem pretty prolific with scripts; do you have anything to change all instances of (film) to (1968 film)? I hate to do it manually... Erik (talk | contribs) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do ;) BOVINEBOY2008 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So, I'm actually not proficient in scripts. I usually use [1], but that will only work if I redirect the (film) article to Yellow Submarine, but I am not sure how often that tool updates. I can do it, but I still would have to go through pretty much every article semi-manually. Perhaps someone else could handle this better? BOVINEBOY2008 18:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask at WT:FILM. I fixed the disambiguation page and two prominent templates, so that should take care of a lot. It just won't update in "What links here" right away, so it's hard to tell where the non-template links exist. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. I'd be willing to help do it by hand if it comes down to that, though. BOVINEBOY2008 18:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you look into this film article? The title is not italicized even after using Template:DISPLAY TITLE. -- Arfaz (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it. If you use DISPLAYTITLE, make sure it goes below the infobox. It'll override the ITALIC written into the infobox. BOVINEBOY2008 03:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

First official warning. Flatterworld (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a difference link and an explanation, citing policies and guidelines? Otherwise, neither I nor any other user will understand to what this "warning" is referring. BOVINEBOY2008 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not bother with discussion. If he responds constructively, great, but considering his vitriol so far, I doubt it will happen. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath (upcoming film) is an interesting case. This from Nov. 2009 says, "The actor recently completed work on the crime thriller Aftermath." This from Sep. 2010 says, "He's currently working on the film 'Aftermath.'" The film appears to exist but is in post-production hell. It reminds me of Fencewalker (which may need to be addressed as well). Since Aftermath seems to exist, do you think it is worth keeping? Or deleting per GNG? There's not much that can be said about it at this point. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when I looked into sources for the film, this is the only thing I could find: trivial mentions like the ones you mentioned. The IMDb page is out of date, indicating it was released in 2010 and they have no news stories actually talking about the film. I would think it should be either deleted due to GNG or perhaps redirected to Anthony Michael Hall as it seems like he is the top roll and the name to which most of the trivial mentions are attached. I could pull the PROD and put it up for AfD, but I feel like it will see the same fate. BOVINEBOY2008 21:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Double Hour.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) 06:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bovineboy2008. I was just wondering why you said that professional reviews don't go in the infoboxes of album articles because that doesn't seem to be the case with the articles With the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night (album), Beatles for Sale, Help! (album), Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and many others. --John of Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, read Template:Infobox_album#Professional_reviews, Template_talk:Infobox_album#Professional_reviews, Template_talk:Infobox_album/Archive_6#Review, Template_talk:Infobox_album/Archive_5#Possibly_removing_the_.22Professional_reviews.22_field, and Template_talk:Infobox_album/Archive_5#Removal_of_.22reviews.22_field. BOVINEBOY2008 17:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Happy editing. --John of Lancaster (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. BOVINEBOY2008 01:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bratz Girlz Really Rock, Fashion Pixiez, Crappin'_You_Negative, Somewhere_in_Time_(album), Oy_(album), Champagne_Jam, Replay_(Play_album), Under_My_Skin_(Play_album), Babalu_(album)

and many others have trivia sections. Should they also be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flimflamx (talk • contribs) 07:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably, see WP:TRIVIA. BOVINEBOY2008 12:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bovineboy2008. Thanks for converting the filmography on Ben Kingsley's page to the sortable kind with this edit [2]. Unfortunately, the table is messed up for the years 1984 thru 1993. I have not learned how to work with these tables so I have temporarily restored the old one until you (or someone who sees my message before you) has a chance to fix things. I am sure that it is something simple and I apologize for not being able to fix it for you. Thanks for your time in taking care of this and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Thank you for the note, MarnetteD. I really do appreciate it. It such a relief from the bickering and reverting that I see from most others. BOVINEBOY2008 01:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the {{ubl}} just needed close brackets. I restored the table with the fix. Let me know if you run into any other issues. BOVINEBOY2008 01:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and for getting to it so quickly. If I come across any other tables with booboos I'll let you know. I'll hope that the rest of your editing this week is of the happy kind :-) MarnetteD | Talk 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Bovineboy2008. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators#Taking the long view.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Are you aware of any process to identify which articles use a film infobox but do not have the WikiProject Film template on the talk page? I get the feeling there's a portion out there that is this way, and I'm not sure if the Tag & Assess covered it. If there is not, I think I know who we can contact to generate a list of such articles. Let me know what the situation is. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how that would be done. I would talk to your other contact to see what s/he says. Although I know there are a lot of film articles that don't have an infobox that aren't tagged that may have country, language or year categories. We may want to look into how we can use those categories for tagging as well. BOVINEBOY2008 01:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I ask because when going through my sub-pages, I found a link to User:Jarry1250/Films, which was generated in April 2009 to show film articles that use infoboxes but had no WikiProject Film template. Most of that list is outdated by now. The editor is still active, so we can make a new request to do that pairing of yes-infobox and no-banner. I'm sure we could do it for categories, too. Which would be the main ones to use in the pairing? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Films by country, Category:Films by language, Category:Films by year and their subsequent subcategories would probably a good place to start if we could possibly find a script. These seem to be the three main categories that most films will be in at least one if any. BOVINEBOY2008 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, this won't be perfect as some of the categories are used on articles that actually don't fall in the scope of the Film project. Like some novel pages that have sections about film adaptations will include the categories for the film. BOVINEBOY2008 15:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The editor pointed me to this tool. I just ran it with WikiProject Film in the template area (and "use talk pages" checked off) and the category English-language films. It works! It does have some false positives like what you mentioned, usually because some articles are amalgamations of novels and films. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Instructions here: Wikipedia:CatScan. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Perhaps we can start up a new Tag & Assess drive with this tool. The Unassessed articles are now nominally low/empty. Could we find someone to write a script to tag the articles that are needed with the |auto= attached? I am not sure how we could eliminate the false positives. Although, there was a bot that went through and tagged several false positives when the |Comic-book-task-force= was added. I can track that down later tonight. BOVINEBOY2008 18:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

66.229.205.111 vandalized this edit on List of Back at the Barnyard episodes. 65.8.216.189 also vandalized this edit on List of Back at the Barnyard episodes earlier. Please request it on page protection. TheStackYear (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You may put in requests for page protection here, although I would advise you try to start a conversation on the talk page. BOVINEBOY2008 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Check this out. I did put requests for page protection. TheStackYear (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out regarding the source for home media. I found it somewhere yesterday but I could not get back the link today. I am new here and nice to meet you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.184.124.13 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Just find the link again and we'll see about restoring the content. BOVINEBOY2008 16:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am now registering as a new user. I added the box office part as I saw every movie contained it. So, Battle: LA should have one too. Will check out the link again for home media. Thank you. Darrell 89 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Welcome to Wikipedia! I see Erik already welcomed you. Feel free to ask me any questions as well. You can either do it here or on your talk page (I'll have it on my watch list). If you need help figuring out coding, I'd be willing to help there, too. BOVINEBOY2008 16:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice an error in Clash of Titans - I don't think the movie grossed more than $700 mil. Please check out the error under the poster. Thanks. Darrell 89 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable? Fine. Could you show me one single source which proves that the production numbers are 153a and 153b? I think not. I'm using these sites for like 6 months and they were always right. --Chrdrenkmann (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia blindly apply its own standard for film titles? Do Wikipedia own the rights for films? That's the only possible explanation for having creating, out of any comon sense, the page "Girl Walks into a Bar".

I originally created the article "Girl Walks Into a Bar" based on the official press release which presents how the film production company wants its film title to be written down. The coordinating conjunction 'Into', although shorter than five letters, must take an initial capital in that particular case . Here is the first official press release for the film: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shangri-la-entertainment-announces-a-gato-negro-film-girl-walks-into-a-bar-103520559.html Here is the second official press release for the film: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shangri-la-entertainment-announces-sebastian-gutierrez-feature-film-girl-walks-into-a-bar-to-premiere-march-11-exclusively-on-youtube-116410124.html

Reliable and respected movie sites like IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1682246/) or Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/girl_walks_into_a_bar/) all repect the way the film production company wants its film title to be spelled. Furthermore, highly respected industry movie sites Variety (http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117944827?refcatid=2850) and The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/girl-walks-a-bar-film-167074) both respected the correct standard for the film title when they reviewed the film.

In short: what this is all about? Applying rules out of any common sense? I DID NOT change Girl Walks into a Bar into another title. I originally created the article Girl Walks Into a Bar which was changed out of common sense into another title.bangbang (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bovineboy2008. Just a query about this edit and wondering your rationale for changing "<p></p>" to "<br />" in a number of places. This article has an extended section where multiple paragraphs are required under single bullets in a bulleted list. The previous approach yielded well-formatted and distinct paragraphs separated by suitable vertical space. Interested in your views. Simon the Likable (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing any difference between the appearance. Honestly, I changed it because I am more familiar with the coding of <br /> and it appeared to be the same. If you want to change it back, be my guest. Sorry if I messed up some formatting. BOVINEBOY2008 02:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problems. The use of "<p>" does seem to yield best results; my use of this technique is based on advice I found in Help:List#Paragraphs in lists, whence also comes the recommendation to use blank lines between each item (although this is ordinarily undesirable). All the best. Simon the Likable (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Simon. I'll take a read, and I appreciate the advice :) BOVINEBOY2008 13:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was granted use of AWB but I have no idea how to use it. I have repeatedly tried at the user manual but It is still not occurring to me. I figure get a user who uses AWB. I would really appreciate it, Thanks And Cheers. Oh and could you please respond on my talk page thanks. Jessy ^T/C 02:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Bovine, I accept that your only source is OneIndia. But, if OneIndia made a mistake, it cannot make an already released film an 'un-releasd' film. I don't know where you are geographically located. But me, being in Kerla have seen that the film got released and flopped at the box-office. There was some hype since one of our Minister's was acting in the film. Please check the date in these link. http://www.mallumovies.org/movie/nakharam. http://www.forumkeralam.com/malayalam-cinema/36266-2011-malayalam-film-analysis-4.html Request you to please check with some Kerala Wikipedian before making such blind edits on Kerala and Malayalam related articles. Thanking You,
Anish Viswa 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

All I was asking for was a source, and you provided that. Thank you! BOVINEBOY2008 10:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is currently nominated for deletion. I'd like to hear your input. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:50 29 March 2011 (UTC)