User talk:PC78/Archive 2009

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PC78. 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.

Archives

2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 2022 • 2023 • 2024 • 2025 Small-town hero

Hello and a happy 2009! Yes, I think they should all be renamed per the standard. It was (briefly) brought up on the talk pages before I moved a handful of pages. The discussion can be found here. The main reason I didn't continue with it was the sheer volume of pages that need to be moved, and then the templates that need to be updated! Lugnuts (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The December 2008 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. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we are of like mind. I think the three articles on the actual awards ceremonies might best remain as seperate articles for now. Yes? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to seen having my own COI, but might you consider reverting the recent edits at this article where G-Man returned his POV and COI? Also, considering his repeated actions at the AfD, might a tempblock be in order? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate it. It is troubling too, as I think I have made the article a keeper. He insists on returning his POV from HERE, and brags on his own blog about Wikipedia quoting him (in the article HE authored). Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Inre THIS... that's what had me recheck the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Post on HIS blog? No thanks (chuckle). That's the kind of validation he's seeking. {ROTFL). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I Never do agian by Kala24ma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala24ma (talk • contribs) 11:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Bronze Wiki
		Presented with special regard for the unsung behind-the-scenes work you've done, as well as the outstanding liaising with the bots to finish long-standing open tasks en masse. I look forward to your continued edits and hope to present a Silver Wiki in the near future. With many thanks from myself and the project, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words as well. Lugnuts (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up, I've fallen behind on format styles... That article, by the way, is another legacy of our mutual acquaintance, now-blocked. It was PRODed, and I couldn't see letting it go away, when there was bound to be some info on it out there. There are probably more unsourced stubs of his floating around. Feel free to drop me a note if you find one and don't have time to work on it. Dekkappai (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! It's too bad about all this, because, probably, good articles can be started on all of these films/people. But as unsourced stubs, they're likely to be deleted. Jang-hwa and Hong-ryeon caught my eye too-- very famous Korean folk story, and it was re-made as A Tale of Two Sisters. I wouldn't be able to work on the Indian films (might be worth notifying someone with experience in that area?), but I'll do what I can, when time allows, on the Japanese and Korean ones. Thanks for the templates-- things have changed a bit during my absence. Dekkappai (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see those articles are getting red-linked one by one... It's a shame, because I really believe that stubs do no harm. When I first joined Wikipedia, stubs were allowed to exist and eventually expand, but the group-think has changed opinion on that, of course. I'm busy with other projects at the moment, and, as this editor seems to be returning to put up more unsourced-copyvio-stubs, there's no real point in jumping in to save these things if he's not going to do his own homework... Eventually you, I, or someone else might get around to starting a valid article on these things. Dekkappai (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware, but we've recently had a vacancy in the coordinator positions due to the unfortunate conduct of Ecoleetage. As an imminent return is unlikely in the circumstances, we've decided to co-opt the seat for the remainder of the term (through late March) in order to allow another, more active editor the chance to join us in an interim coordinatorship. On behalf of the support of five of the current six coordinators (with other one currently not commenting), I would like to ask if you would be interested in accepting the position? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I look forward to seeing you at WT:FILMC, then. (Please watchlist it if you haven't already.) As to the deprecated templates, I think TfD is best, unless you have another reason for their retention in mind? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to have you on board! Congratulations! —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest if you have concerns you open a new investigation at WP:SPI. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I use the welcome template for anybody that signs up for the active members' list. It helps to reinforce and guide our new members. For the one that you developed, I think that's a great idea for seeking new members and that you should add it to the outreach page so that members can begin using it to invite potential members. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. By the way, thanks for fixing the columns at Spotlight. I was actually thinking of doing it last night but other articles popped up and I forgot. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. I'll mention it in the newsletter so that members can start using it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The newsletter is usually sent out on the first of the month, so we have about ten days if there is some formatting you want to fix. What browser are you using? I would like to see a screenshot if possible, since this is possibly happening for other members as well. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's weird, I've never seen it like that. Has it done this for every issue, or has it started just recently? Perhaps we can go back and determine what month a particular edit occurred that caused the line to move over. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that knowledgeable on finding errors in templates. Do you know how to fix it? Or perhaps we can find someone else who does? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Perhaps we can put the changes into the newsletter template for future issues. I'll try to complete the majority of the newsletter a few days before I send it out so that you can make sure it looks okay on IE. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem, there wasn't that much feedback on the quote game anyways (maybe I made it too hard). I'll think of something else to add for this month's. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi PC78. I'm ready to close the survey and do the moves. The relisting did nothing and since no one has weighed in between the two formats you suggested, where do you stand between List of box office number one films of 2008 in the United States and List of 2008 box office number one films in the United States? You suggested the latter to be less clunky and I agree. A second point of ambiguity is whether its number one or number-one. This search suggests to me that it should be hyphenated. It would be a shame to move all of these and fix all double redirects, only to have minor points like this result in another request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All moved, all redirects fixed. Luckily there were only a few which greatly speeded the process up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm initiating discussion here since my idea was very preliminary and possibly not related to coordinatorship. As you can see, my user page has a header of useful links for me. I was thinking that a portal page could be a good idea in the sense that all important links could be displayed on one page without having to scroll down. I was thinking about this because you've introduced some useful tools to the WikiProject, and like I said, these are tools that can't really be watchlisted. An upfront portal page for an editor could improve navigation because I feel like oftentimes it is too easy to not pay attention to the slowly shifting pages, like peer reviews or assessments. What do you think? Feel free to respond here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy on Naming conventions (films) as it exists is linked to in discussion of Push: WP:NCF --Larrybob (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Explain immediately why you are edit warring over a page you've never edited. Gimmetrow 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Per your failure to respond I will assume you have no response. Gimmetrow 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you have failed to explain why the banner is necessary, I'm nicely asking you to remove it. Gimmetrow 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I explained why I didn't want it. Since you have failed to explain why it is necessary, and have studiously avoided that question, you are hereby warned that further edit warring will result in you being blocked. Gimmetrow 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Again you fail to explain why the template needs to be there. If you cannot provide an explanation, then remove it. Gimmetrow 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You've still failed to answer. The categories existed for tracking, and have done just fine for a year and a half without a problem. Why does the template need to be there? If the template really needs to be there, I will change it so it is tolerable. Appearance matters, since this is one of the largest project templates out there - it takes up about two pages on my screen, which is absurd. You don't look at this page, so it doesn't matter to you. Gimmetrow 02:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] I suppose you'll fix this eventually? Also try browsing without javascript, and you should see the issue with the film template. Gimmetrow 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, about the nation film templates you removed from the list here, did you remember to take off the TFD tags from the templates? I would do it myself but I can't figure out which ones they are (someone else apparently did, but hey, it's late :P). If you didn't, can you either do it yourself or point me to which ones they are and I'll do it? Thanks much, delldot ∇. 08:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I had not fully appreciated the scope of User categories. However, those whose CFD-closure I have advocated are a different class of category from those about which most CFDs are about. I will desist from the offence you have identified. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

--Mononomic (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to review the article. It looks like it just passed A-class review, but I plan on taking it FAC in the coming weeks/months, and it would benefit from a copyedit. If you're interested, feel free to take a whack at it, or point out any issues you see on the talk page and I'll get to addressing them. If not, no worries, you can always wait to look at it prior to going to FAC. Thanks again. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

--Mononomic (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi PC78. The above movie has been nominated for GA. I saw your review comments at Pankh talkpage and thought of contacting you seeing your contriutions. Can you review it? Since after nominating, it takes a hell lot of time for someone to pick up the article for review, i thought of asking your help. Cheers!! "Legolas" (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ya ia know those articles needs to be reviewed first. Anyways thanks for your time. But can you suggest someone who does GA review? "Legolas" (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi PC78, can you review the above linked article?. The movie has been released. Regards "Legolas" ^talk 07:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

--Mononomic (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would give me some sort of idea how these sections should be formatted, it is something I could do occasionally when I'm just killing time between other projects. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some work on the list as time goes on. I actually watchlisted the category some time ago to keep my awareness of it, then got sidetracked. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hi, do you know where I can find the original version of this image (i.e. without Seoul highlighted)? Many thanks! PC78 (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)"

Here you go File:South Korea.png. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, PC78. I'm just wondering how you manage to watch Korean movies? You've said you can't read Korean, but most of Korean films do not have English subtitles except very big hits.... Just with a hunch? --Caspian blue 01:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. You might have ordered yours via online stores because it was very hard for me to buy Korean films or even other Asian films (obviously Hong Kong and Chinese films that I like) on DVD in UK. Due to your contributions to rare topics (like horror films or very old films), I've assumed you would sometimes watch Korean films without caption. Anyway, thank you for the answer and good work. --Caspian blue 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image_Lab request is under way Resident Mario (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Rugby films, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Rugby films has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Rugby films, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the placeholder images from articles as a rule. the community has remained quite divided on their use however. Editors should use discretion to consider how likely it is that a free image will be found. For BLP's and people who have lived after 1950s it's quite likely images can be found. -- Banjeboi 20:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Malaka Dewapriya, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaka Dewapriya (2nd nomination). Thank you. NYScholar (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A visually impaired user has already said that she has difficulty reading the templates. ;) Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No need for apology, that was a wink after my comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the web shot!! That helps a lot. I'm not too sure on how the italics are placed in the title but I'm pretty certain that no pages would have to be moved after all it is still the same lettering. I jus tthink it would be a case of a font change to italics perhaps reading off the infobox or category or something? It would make sense as throughout the encyclopedia films and tv programmes books etc are in italics so would seemingly be more consistent. Perhaps we should start a village pump discussion on it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. PC. OK discussion moved to village pump. Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice about the formatting. Your suggestion makes a big difference to the pages. I'll be going back over the ones I made and fixing them up. If you spot anything else, let me know. Waygugin (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy. I have been working on those chanes and just now I noticed a curious phenomenon. On the page titled Geomdansan, the calculations for converting into feet come out differently though on other pages it comes out fine. Any idea what that is about?Waygugin (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the article [Arirang-2] or section be merged with [Satellite Kompsat-2]. I agree with this suggest. I purpose the title Satellite Kompsat-2 or Arirang-2 because :

• Kompsat-2 is more famous in the world, Arirang is famous in South Korea
• To write satelitte in the title because Arirang is also a Korean folk song, a TV, a film and more.

I will propose in few days a merged article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PascalMichelSI (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I just hovered over the link and clicked the middle button. So I opened it in a new window and copied the link. :P SKS2K6 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering if you know what happened to all the articles in Category:Wikipedia requested film images and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of films? It would be nice to think that someone has added images but I cannot believe someone has address so many in so short a time.Traveler100 (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting these better. --Pascal666 (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just curious, are you currently working on some of these articles needing a cast? I will do 4 or 5 and refresh the category and the number drops considerably - from over 7200 when I started to less than 6600, and I've certainly not done that many. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

One never knows! The upside of this is that a few of the articles I've looked at do have a cast section now, but no one updated the template. I'm cheating a bit, I've picked a few that I know or are fairly mainstream films - 21 Grams didn't have a cast list, for example. Ah well! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That will certainly help me focus my energies more efficiently! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment there. Bzuk (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

I agree that my time has not been spent recently in the WickyWacky world, although I hoped that people would understand that professional responsibilities must sometimes trump what is essentially a "hobby." I will continue to devote some time to the projects I had started but in re-establishing my watchlist, I noted with some sadness and resignation that a number of the articles that I had written had been "rewritten" with a revision to an arcane and often singular style by a group of film editors. What is more disturbing is that numerous images have been summarily removed making them "orphans" and thus causing the bots to go into effect. In checking the history of the removals, in nearly all cases, it was an editor on a "crusade" whose intentions were always stated as being for the "common good" but it did appear to be a distressing trend of cyber snobbery and bullying. My initial thought was to replace the images and edits as both actions went against the established "first person's work remains" dictum but I started to pick up a pattern of these editors revising major articles to fit their own style, and further, then eliminating the original research and work that had already been in place. What is further evident is that the editors then triumphantly would boost their revised articles, putting them up for review and attracting further notice when other editors and coordinators recognized their efforts in a plethora of barnstars. I don't particularly mind that there is a sub-set of editors that are working in Wikipedia for personal gratification, the "soliciting" of barnstars, placing their names into contention for administrators, asking for special privileges, ad nauseum... although that was never my intention in adding to the project. I am one of the editors who never has been after rewards and I do not wish to have my work necessarily "peer reviewed" as the articles of themselves invite collaboration and should eventually become the work of many. What I noted on my recent return was the deliberate re-writing of a number of articles without a consensus for change, especially when the changes were in most part, stylistic. One of the galling aspects was the deliberate rewriting of citations and bibliographies that were painstakingly written in "text" but did not follow the sometimes obscure "templates" yet were perfectly acceptable examples of Harvard citations or other standard bibliographic formats. As a former librarian and now a professional editor and author, my work has revolved around the use of the so-called editorial standards or "house style guides" to identify sources, so I believe I am fairly well versed on bibliographic methodology. Now when it comes to Wikipedia's style of referencing sources, the format chosen is an amalgam of two or three formats including the MLA (Modern Language Association), APA (American Psychological Association) and "Chicago Style" guides. Rather than spitting in the wind, I have chosen to not try to re-write Wikipedia into my own notions and I tend to leave other people's work alone, however, that does not seem to be the case for other editors, as can be seen in the never-ending diatribe that is found in the format talk pages. So hopefully, this blathering helps explain my consternation at being labeled "AWOL", as I was never far from the scene but had some genuine reservations about whether an effort in this medium was worth the trouble. Bzuk (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC) (take this for what it's worth – not much in today's economy!)

Thanks for the congratulations. When are you going for it? :)

By the way, how does someone from Lancashire become interested in Korea? I have been there a couple of times and really liked the place. Martin^msgj 09:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could look at Articles for creation/Homosexuality in Korean Films for us and see if you think there is anything useful here? Thanks, Martin^msgj 19:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If I can butt in-- I glanced at it, and my concerns would be over "Original Research" as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there are articles/writings which cover the subject, but until one is found, the article would be comprised of synthesis. Also, I have my doubts about many of the assertions (conservatism preventing homosexuality being portrayed, etc.) This is the official "party line", but actually, during the 1970s and '80s, softcore porn films were a major part of Korean cinema (I've had the idea of starting articles on this in the back of my mind for a while...) I've collected some sources on this, ("Korean Erotic Films Get Their Due" for example). About homosexuality specifically, I don't know, but I do know I've read major Korean novels from the '70s or maybe even '60s, which portray homosexuality. (Can't recall the names off-hand.) Anyway, reliable sources covering the topic would surely give better information. The article in progress looks more like off-the-cuff anecdotal writing based on personal observations at present. Dekkappai (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hope you don't mind but I've copied your comments onto the submission where they will likely be helpful to the author and reviewer. I think we're all agreeing here though. Martin^msgj 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Dekkappai (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted all that were requested. Good job stumbling on to those. Let me know if you find any other pages no longer being used by the project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted pages. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your question about Li Shidao. Please see my talk page for my response. --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, if I wanted to close it right now, I'd be inclined to close it as "no consensus", and I actually want it to be implemented, so I went ahead and supported. I'd recommend that you find another uninvolved administrator to close it as I've basically recused myself from doing so. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The February 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. As Sephiroth mentioned above, I feel that there is no real consensus on this issue at the current time and I have closed that element of the discussion as such. In my analysis, however, I have tried to highlight certain areas in which the discussion may be progressed. I would like to see some form of resolution here, I do not feel that simply closing as a "no censensus" would have been particularly helpful to anyone concerned. I hope my efforts have been helpful. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Since I see the article was recreated yet again and that you made a few edits on the new article, I just wanted to see if you are now satisfied with this film passing WP:NFF. I don't think I am but I wanted to check with you before I nominated it for AfD. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/Instructions to bring the different upgrading instructions together in a more central location. Do you think we should go with this and delete the templates (Template:Upgrading needed and Template:Upgrading neededSB) that are linked to from the film banner? The page could probably be developed further and also eventually provide instructions for improving articles on characters, equipment, awards, film festivals, genres, etc. (we really need to start working on this, we've stated for over a year that instructions were coming!). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I had seen those pages before as well. I was planning on creating something like that for the tag and assess drive to help editors know the differences in classes. Of course, we'll still need to wait on the C-class discussion to finish as well as create the extra parameters in the film banner before moving on with that. Should we link to the instructions page from the banner in the page's current form and delete the upgrading templates? Or would you like to revise the page further before doing so? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Vettaikaaran's image is used in article Vettaikaaran, right. So, why are you cansidering that image as orphanage.

--- Thulasi12345 (talk •contribs) 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! your edit of Feb 20 to the Ham Seok-heon page was anything but minor, although you marked it as such. Something of that size should certainly have been posted on the discussion page first. --Dan (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - I'll go & check & get back to you - I didn't see the note; maybe it departed. --Dan (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, my mistake. It's been a while, but my recollection, after looking here:

http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/notes_on_sok_hon_ham.htm is that user wadans who inserted that chunk is also Dr. Kim who wrote the master's thesis that appears on Tom Conyers' site, but I have only that recollection and no other evidence, so, yes, it should be deleted. --Dan (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just following up on your bot request -- has there been any discussion about whether the template should be located at {{Film}} or {{WikiProject Films}}? The bot's pretty much ready to run if we can answer that question. Thanks! [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, by the way, and the category is orphaned. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Not sure exactly what you didn't like about this, but could you check again? I think I've resolved the style changes. The only difference now should be the shortcut embedding and being the right width. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamed Vakili. If this AfD continues to garner no votes, what happens? I can't PROD it at some point, can I? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a day to the timestamp. Have you thought any more about going for the mop? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If I had nothing to do then I would. But I have so much going on with work and school that I couldn't devote enough time to being an active, effective coordinator. I appreciate the thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi PC . I don't know if you but Template:American films recently went through tfd and was voted to "delete", seemingly by a bunch of people who do not work on film articles. I am a little frustrated by this as when my decade templates were voted for deletion before which seemd to have more foucs by decade, the decision was to merge into one big template. And now people don't want this? We really need to link to the lists of films by year. FOr some reason as yet we still have the template. If worst comes to worse and the template is deleted I think we should seriously think about consistently adding a see also List of American films of 1941. or whatever at the end of EVERY article linking to the relative year in film. We would need a bot to add it. In all honesty I'm very tired with people's outlook on templates related to American cinema on here, nobody seems to care about other cinem templates but people always seem to cause a fuss ovrer American films don't they? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah exactly, I feel the same way about it mate. I don't get why people are like that in regards to American films. Nobody batters an eyelid if you create cinema templates for anywhere else. The original CinemaoftheUS was considered too generic from its creation, yet the British template is accepted. Then they think there is no need to have a template which links to the years in films. The thing is, how are normal editors supposed to know that there are pages by year if we shut off any navigation? I'd fully support a see also section linking to the specific year in film but it is such a waste of time when the template would have to be removed from over 3000 articles and then a bot unleashed to edit over 13,000 articles. People seem to want to regard American film as "larger than life" and seem to want to ingore any simple means of connecting it together as an industry. It is actually the same with geo articles too. Most people couldn't give a dman what I do with articles on most countries in the worlds, the moment however I start to make any changes to America and Canada suddenly people start fussing. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see User:Erik9 has started removing them with a bot. I've asked him to replace them with a see also section List of American films of 1999 etc. If not I'll have to see if I can get somebody to restore links using AWB as we can't shut off the links. It really is annoying, I thought a good number of people were happy to see this template? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Its getting ridiculous now. People are kicking up a fuss about even a specific link? ,I really don't get why people are obsessed with shutting off every link imaginable on American films. Its weird isn't it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for thinking of me, I considered that a few months ago, but I'm not so sure. I considered myself semi-active with the project, although I do read every new posting to the talk, and I only speak up when I feel like I have something relevant to add to the current discussion. I'm a lot more active in WP:ACTOR, which doesn't have much in the way of organized leadership, and find that it keeps me fairly busy in that semi-capacity, as does the even less active WP:CRIME. I think that for the moment, I'm a lot more interested in the work in the biographies area than the actual films. Although I do have my little projects (the cast additions) at WP:FILM, I have my little projects on the others, too. That plus some personal issues (vision/health problems, voc rehab work, etc.) and I'm not sure I should commit myself that much further right now. I may find myself changing focus as voc rehab works to help me begin working from home due to aforementioned personal issues. I'll be looking at the coordinator elections and certainly will be voting and as things settle for me, it might be an option the next round. Thanks again! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for thinking of me too! I think I will put my name forward. Cheers! Lugnuts (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I couldn't revert back to your version so I re-uploaded the image and deleted the large image revision. I was surprised I didn't catch that the first time. Usually when I review articles such as GANs images are the first thing I look at. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your absolutely right about the new sock. This talkpage and this talk page really sealed it for me. I actually had already mentioned it to Shamwow86 earlier today with this comment when he asked to be unblocked. Definitely will need to be watched. Thanks for the notice. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[2] How does one go about doing that, then? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting this out with a grin - so you think that a consensus by regular film/actor editors would pass? I take it from your first comment you wouldn't object. Golden Raspberries aren't real awards, like I said, they are parody awards and I really can't see how or why they should automatically be included in a list of honors and awards. They aren't honors or awards, they are mean-spirited slurs. Well, except for maybe - who was it? Sharon Stone - who showed up to accept. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you really don't want to know about the controversy I've unwittingly stepped into about birth and death templates that go into biography infoboxes, but I stumbled upon what was far less than a consensus to completely change them out for a different one. The actual consensus consisted of a couple people agreeing the new ones seemed easier to use and there shouldn't be a wide conversion to put in the old ones. I'm less than thrilled to have found it takes one motivated person to thrust a change upon something that effects over 600,000 articles and am trying to expose it. Silly me. Then I had a sock puppet case stalking me into real life. What a weekend! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you decided not to get into the template imbroglio? Chicken!! I don't know what I'm more opposed to - sneaking in a widespread change or being mandated to changeover something that doesn't need changed!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So you like the infobox proposal, huh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wellllll, we could add a parameter for medium (television, film, stage). I'll have to give a think on it, as they say. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be a great idea. It appears we have enough DYKs to last many months. It could also be used to advertise for other editors to try for DYKs of their own. I'll try to work on completing the newsletter earlier so you can take a look at it before the deadline. Since you thought of it, do you want to go with the oldest DYKs we know of or start with the most recent? Or use some other parameter? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I added five facts as well as a brief notice on the addition with instructions on how to try for DYKs. Feel free to expand/reword/whatever you like. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorting in a reference work is conventional, with the goal of making things easier to find. In Wikipedia, we generally get a "good enough" result for most articles in categories by letting the database sort the article title "as-is". Sadly, the database doesn't do an English language sort (which is a case insensitive sort), it does a Unicode sort, which is case sensitive. To deal with this in the biographical articles, where I have been sorting probably 10 articles a day for 18 months, the convention to get "good enough" lists is to capitalize each "word" (space-delimited element) in a name, and lowercase all other letters. By applying this convention uniformly, we effectively have case-insensitive sorting despite the software, and Wikipedia gets good lists that conform to English speakers expectations of an alphabetically sorted list. In other areas of Wikipedia, most article titles already conform to these capitalization rules; they don't need a DEFAULTSORT. The biggest class of exceptions I'm aware of are titles of some creative works, especially books and films, that contain those "small" words that don't normally get capitalized in title case, e.g. "in", "on", "of", etc. If we don't override the article title with a DEFAULTSORT statement, we effectively do case sensitive sorting. This as I've noted would put Woman on the Beach after A Woman Rebels. As comparison of practices in other works, see The New York Times and The Encyclopedia Britannica, both of which also use case-insensitive sorting. In the Times example linked to, we have The Bad and the Beautiful sorting before Bad Day at Black Rock, where Wikipedia's default case-sensitive sorting would reverse them. In Britannica, the "Woman of ..." articles fall between the "Woman Musician" and "Woman Reading" articles. Wikipedia's drama film category starting at "Woman", now that I've fixed several articles, conforms to the case-insensitive convention. See for yourself; do you really think Woman on the Beach should come after Woman Thou Art Loosed? Sorting conventions are relatively arbitrary for a culture, but I really can assure you that case-insensitive sorting is the publication standard in most cases.

As Wiki-problems go, the mis-sort cause by the lowercase words is a pretty trivial problem; in most cases, especially small categories or where the leading word is not very common, the misplacement is only a few positions and most people searching for a particular title will see it anyway, unless there's an unfortunate page break. However, for those of us who have spent a fraction of our lives dealing with sorting issues for professional publication, such mis-sorts stand out in blazing neon and scream unprofessional, and I suspect it grates on other people as well. While Wikipedia will never be perfect, I like to spend some of my time in making it better in the area of category sorting.

By the way, there are actually 2 common ways that publications do case-insensitive sorting, space-condensed and not. In space condensed (I'm not sure what the technical name is, but that's the effect), spaces are removed from list element lines before the list is sorted. The New York Times for example does this, see here, with the list containing, in their order: An American in Paris, The Americanization of Emily, American Movie. I haven't bothered to figure out what the Britannica does. With the current Wikipedia software and editors, it's utterly impractical to do space-condensing; it's really something that the software ought to be doing for us automagically, if we wanted it, along with enforcing case-insensitivity. Studerby (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks for your prior work on Template:Chinese Emperor. I am pondering -- would it be possible to implement some optional fields in the cases of emperors who reigned multiple times? That would make it possible for such articles as Emperor An of Jin and Emperor Ruizong of Tang to switch over to the template. --Nlu (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The March 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) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello and congratulations on being elected as a coordinator for WikiProject Films! As the lead coordinator, I look forward to helping set an agenda for the WikiProject for this term and beyond, and I hope that you will actively participate in working through our agenda's objectives. I ask you to take a moment and review the goals of WikiProject Films (listed on the WikiProject's front page and reiterated here):

• To standardize the film articles in Wikipedia
• To improve Wikipedia coverage of films by adding, expanding and improving film articles
• To serve as a central point of discussion for issues related to Wikipedia film articles
• To provide the necessary framework to assist in bringing all articles within the project scope to the highest possible quality

Since you have stepped forward to take on the responsibilities of the coordinator position, my expectations are for you to play an active role in most coordinator-related discussions and to bring new ideas to the circle whenever possible. Since all seven of us will collaborate in discussions, I ask you to take a moment and leave a comment here about your background as an editor (I provided my own background). Outline what you believe your strengths and your weaknesses are, and summarize what you want to accomplish for WikiProject Films this term. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I do not plan to neglect all the "new toys" you introduced not too long ago! :) I think you provided a lot of great tools, and we will definitely discuss the best ways to use them. If you have any thoughts about them or any other coordinator-related aspect, I am happy to hear them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ever seen User:ClockworkSoul/Igor? Do you have an opinion about it? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The page looks great! I was hoping for something like this for each class, and guidelines/FAQs like these will help to clear some of the confusion editors have about assessing articles. I'm out the door right now, but later today/tomorrow I'll try to look at it closer. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I made some minor fixes, added a question, and left some hidden comments for possibly expanding some of the answers. Please take a look and determine if they should/shouldn't be there. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your recent edit request from Template talk:Grading scheme, as the page is not protected. You can do the edits yourself. -- IRP ☎ 17:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to let you know that you are risking being blocked from editing when you revert legitimate edits without explanation. Even if I made a mistake, you are breaching the Wikipedia policies by not explaining your revert in the edit summary. When clicking undo, please modify the edit summary to where someone who is reviewing the edit history of the page will know why you reverted the edit. When you revert and don't explain, you are treating the edit as vandalism. -- IRP ☎ 17:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit per Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Explain reverts. The explanation is not only for the user who you are reverting, but other users who are reviewing the page history. -- IRP ☎ 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

I read the talk section regarding the idea of putting simbols along the start, stub and C rating remplates, and you were one of the three that said No, even so the simbols are there, why is that and is going to stay like that? Zidane tribal (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It sure answer it, thanks, and i agree with you.Zidane tribal (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you try my code? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if there were any automated processes in place to tag the talk pages of film articles with the respective task forces? It seems possible for a bot to check a film article for a category like Category:American comedy films and to go to the talk page and insert American-task-force=yes. I'm kind of in the dark about tagging methods, so let me know if I am missing out on any useful tools or approaches. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not clear; is there a bot that can do this? Has it been done already? I'm trying to play catch-up with understanding best practices with tagging and assessing... :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any idea why Dr. Blofeld would go through and remove all his posts regarding the awards section of the infobox? What does that mean and how does that effect the entire discussion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Korean Barnstar I, Caspian blue award PC78 in recognition of your meritorious service to WikiProject Korea, both as a prolific article contributor and keeping it running. Keep up the good work, thank you.--Caspian blue 19:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

On 12 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gwangtonggwan, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, PC78-- I know these little, unsourced stubby things are annoying. I've resigned myself to just letting the ones I don't care about get deleted. If someone else has time and interest enough to recreate them later, that's always an option. But I've had Takita in mind for work since he won the academy award, and been collecting sourcing. So I have all his films on my watchlist. When you prodded it I was doing a little work on Janghwa Hongryeonjeon created by our mass-stub-making friend. If you want to chip in on that one, feel free. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey PC78, I've made a tool for you: [3]. Sure, it only checks against one infobox (film), but that should keep you busy for a while. It's totally accurate and up-to-date, by the way, but could have bugs as I have FlyingParchment has only just finished writing the SQL. I would appreciate any feedback you have. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just give me some details and we'll have a go. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've got a provisional tool working, but you will find that it has a huge flaw: it works too well. It simply can't discern between a good, non-generic image and a placeholder/cleanup template/stub template image. I'll have to think of a workaround, but I'm not sure one is going to be entirely easy to create (a blacklist perhaps?). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Much, much harder to do, I'm afraid (just how the database operates). I have, however, made the situation a lot better by limiting valid images to ".jpg"s. See what you think: the tool scored 100% on my small scale spot check. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll forward that link onto people who will want to sort it (I merely lobbied for the category to exist so we could be having this conversation), but it looks good. Edit links are now fixed (that was me typing something off the top of my head and not checking it later). The accent issue is one of differing character encodings; I would ignore it if it doesn't matter, or by all means send me the link to an example if it does. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Shout if you have other bugs/requests. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now fixed the encoding for both tools and tightened up controls on what images pass, so if you've duplicated a list for your own purposes, you may want to re-sync. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I'll have to think about that. Actually, if it so happens that the talk-page-template adds all talk pages to a given category, this may be what you're after. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you and your 'colleagues' at WP:FILM know that you can now generate lists of article which should be tagged as needing a photo, but aren't. It's this for the ones that really should be tagged. No, that's a bit unfair actually, because of all the copyright concerns. Still, that's one list for you. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you're actively editing in the next hour or two, but I wrote out an agenda at User:Erik/Coordinators#Preliminary agenda. I plan to place it on WP:FILMC today or tomorrow, where it can be revised in true wiki style. Any early thoughts on the presentation or the objectives? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry for being so nosey.) This lists all articles transcluding {{Infobox Film}} but do not have their talk pages tagged with {{Film}}. The quality of those article, is alas, in many cases rather poor - which is why they've ended up like this. Still, there you go. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There he goes again... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I didn't do things properly in nominating these articles for deletion, I'm not used to doing it this way- I've tended to stick to prodding in the past but some if the material is probably salvageable by someone knowledgeable on the subject with the time to improve them- such as, it would seem, yourself and I thought it best to get a consensus, rather than having someone just remove the prod. Could you talk me through what I omitted and I'll go back and change it and bear it in mind for future reference. A rely or a TalkBack on my own talk page would be very much appreciated. Kind Regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank f**k for bots is all I can say! I have a tendency to leave a mess behind when doing something like that. I tend not to nominate en mass, but the state of some of the articles warranted it, I felt. It'd be good to see some of them saved- some of them seem to be notable but the articles are poorly written, shallow and poorly researched.

As a word of warning, if you're planning on saving any, be sure to google them first- some appeared to have been more or less copied and pasted from movie websites etc- something to watch out for. I'd hate to see you win an AfD only to have it up for speedy as a copyvio or the like. Good luck, HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Park Chul-soo is a major director. (Perhaps if people would look at all the major subjects we still don't have articles on rather than looking for verifiable material to delete, we'd have an article on him already... grumble...) I'll take a look at it and do what I can. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the editor who created this article and the one on the screenwriter is a sock of our mass-stubbing buddy... Takes a little of the urgency out of the situation, but I'll still try to do what I can do. Dekkappai (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How Do I make the film "Notable"? Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FUTURE2FUTURE (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Lea stein to Lea Stein. I wasn't sure how to do it, and I was just about to figure it all out. So I really appreciate the help :)

Best regards,

Caroline Sanford, 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for merging his filmography into the main article. I know how to move an article from one title to another but not how to merge one into the other. Do you mind giving me a quick lesson? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto from me. I've come across a few lately and at least one I redirected back to the main article. That was done by the same guy who interpreted the foreign film titles himself and won't respond on talk pages. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, PC78. I created the new article based on its inclusion in a list of requested articles at WP:FILM. I was not aware of the existing article listing winners of six or more. You redirected "8" to "6" here. Although 6 does list the same films, I believe 8's structure as prose includes more details on the actual awards won by each film. Please explain why you think both articles couldn't co-exist. Thanks. --Thomprod (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

... you are just the kind of person that we need around here, and being "a chicken" is not a valid excuse. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please accept it and be brave! --Caspian blue 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll have to give it some thought. And curse you both for making me comment on my own talk page for the first time in two and a half years! :P PC78 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please think, but don't think too much ;) To anyone else who comes along to this page, I am looking for

1. More pressure to be applied to encourage PC to accept :)
2. Someone who knows and can comment on PC's work in WikiProjects, especially Film and/or Korea, who would be willing to conominate. (Or nominate - I am quite happy to stand aside if someone who has known this editor for longer wants to take the lead!)

So what's with the not-replying-on-your-talk-page thing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thought and the kind words, but I must respectfully decline this offer. While it would certainly be convenient to be able to edit protected templates, it isn't a huge problem and not the best motivation in itself to be seeking adminship. Beyond that it isn't really something I need to do the things I want to do on Wikipedia, and I don't need any more distractions keeping me away from article space than what I already have. Thanks again – I'll certainly give it some further consideration – but for now it's a "no". PC78 (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Something in the Water and tell me if you think it's a goer? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your template got #4. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you do me a favor? As you know the article of Kang Dae-ha is recently survived from the AfD. I nominated it to DYK, but a reviewer said it should be copy-edited. Could you do that for me? I think it just needs a small touchup.--Caspian blue 23:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the work. As for the question, well, according to the KMDb source in Korean[4] (Google Translation), the 1970 work is not his first screenplay, but the opportunity for him to join in the screenpla world. His first screenplay is "Nunbora/Nunbola" which was co-authored by another writer, Kang Keun-shik I hope it clear things up. Thanks.-Caspian blue 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As for missing Somebody's' House (Tain-ui jip, 1970) and A Girl's First Love (Sonyeo-ui cheot-sarang, 1971), those are just a result of different translation. The latter movie is "adapted by Kang Dae-ha", and its English title is listed as "First love"[5]. Sometimes, KMDb misses some entries, so I will search the former in Korean movie sites. --Caspian blue 00:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For the useful work and time you put into getting Kang Dae-ha to DYK requirement, I, award PC78 this copyeditor's barnstar. Thank you so much.

--Caspian blue 01:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, PC78-- I just noticed that the lead to Cinema of Korea looked rather suspicious. I went back and found THIS "contribution" from an anon back in April '07... Wow-- that unsourced bit of POV went unnoticed all this time... I changed it back to the original, which matches opinions of experts in the field from what I've read. Dekkappai (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, PC78! I'm taking a breather from the Korean work now-- Just noticed the horrible shape of the Ultraman / Godzilla / tokusatsu Japanese film articles, and will try to do something on them... also might blue-link some of the Yokohama Film Festival and Pink Grand Prix films... cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The April 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) 07:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

When you Afd an article, can you also contatc the creator and regular editors for evidence. Thanx. Universal Hero (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

as per Theeradha Velaiyattu Pillai, a consensus was nearly reached without the knowledge of the creator and a heavy editor. Universal Hero (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you moved North Korea – United States relations to North Korea–United States relations. That was an incorrect move per WP:DASH, which states "All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items". I reverted your move accordingly. Just wanted to let you know. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't unused until I ran across it, saw it was put in the midst of the Sellers article after the relatively short (6 kb) filmography had been spun off from the relatively short main article (27 kb), returned the filmography table and updated it, and removed the template. But yes, it remained because it was uncategorized. I've found a number of older British film actor articles wherein an editor had spun off filmographies despite the size. I dunno why but it seems really unnecessary to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for providing an assesment of these articles. I am curious, you gave them each a rating of start class. In looking over the quality scale, it seems to me that both articles meet all the criteria for B class. If you have a moment, can you please point out specifics I can do to move it up the scale? Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that both articles fail criteria #2 (reasonably covers the topic). Neither article says anything about production, release or distribution, all of which I would regard as basic elements of any film article. In addition, Tully could do with a slightly more substantial plot summary, while the "critical reception" section Spirit of the Marathon is rather sparse. You may find it beneficial to look at existing B-Class articles, while WP:FILMB offers more detail on the necessary criteria. Hope that helps! PC78 (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and helpful reply. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marine Boy (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally wiped out (for now). Perhaps we should change the banner to categorize them to a more general "incorrect tag" category? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts? :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should ask; I was just placing an edit request. Will upmerge it into the parent "obsolete parameters" category for now. PC78 (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you might also want to re-review the Checks subpage - I think that the Christian task force might be missing from the first round of task force parameter calls. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. :) PC78 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kim Kang-woo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind starting discussion at WT:FILM about reverting the change to the home page? I liked the blue background; it did seem like less of an eyesore. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless I've missed a prior discussion on this, I have no need to start a discussion. I'm not sure how the page is an "eyesore" when it looks exactly the same as any other page. It seemed like a rather unnecessary change to me. PC78 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Would you consider taking away references to this very non-standard importance rating from your colour tables, many of which are in prominent places? I believe that people are seeing it and then thinking it must be a standard one and then asking for their banners to be converted, which causes a great pain in the ass, because it's not something the meta can do easily yet! Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean this? I had itended for it to be inclusive of all the class and importance types used across multiple projects, but it's not like you need my permission if that's what you want to do. ;) The category shows seven projects using Bottom-importance, though two subcategories are empty; the Luxembourg project no longer seems to support it in their banner, though I'm less sure about the New Brunswick project. Seems like most of these banners have already been converted, though. PC78 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just written a new hook for custom importance scales, so it's not too difficult to implement now. I think the only non-standard ones are Bottom- and No-importance? So I'll leave your color mixing table alone! Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for that link, PC78-- have you had a chance to watch it yet? What an amazing film! From my own editing perspective, if certain scenes were spiced up just a very little, and the crucial liaison between the father and the maid were shown, this would be a classic example of early Pink film, of the era of Slave Widow or The Bite. All the more amazing in that Kim's film was made two years before Satoru Kobayashi's Flesh Market (1962)-- the first pink film! And what is shown in this South Korean film is as extreme as what could be seen in any mainstream Japanese film-- or even U.S. film-- in 1960. I also see some influence from late, over-ripe noir like Touch of Evil (the 1998 restoration of which I just recently saw and cannot recommend highly enough!)... Yet it's all very uniquely Kim Ki-young-esque as I imagined it while reading about him and writing the article. Anyway, it's a link I'll use over again. Thanks again! Dekkappai (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've watched the first five minutes or so—it certainly looks like they've done a superb job with the restoration—but I'm afraid I don't have the patience to watch an entire film on my computer. I'd be very surprised if there isn't a dvd release at some point, though. PC78 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't start cooking till later on. Give it a try one way or other. Yes, the restoration is very good, considering the state it apparently was in. Dekkappai (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The May 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) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello PC78,

Thank you for your commenting on the article of Gotjawal forest. I have improved the article after your comment. Can you please check if the article still needs to be wikified?

Yongchangjang (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The guideline concerned was adopted with consensus support. There is still an ongoing discussion about one of the points; that point did not affect any of the articles affected by my edits. Rebecca (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just been through my watchlist, and noticed that article you appear to be concerned is someone that was actually notable under their prior name. My apologies - I misread the article when I was going through them. Rebecca (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if that becomes a standing precedent, it's going to make the new tool to identify Film/Bio cross-tags virtually worthless. (All the moreso because the tool renders out all instances without a namespace.) Being as the template covers one biography, I don't think that makes it a biography template, anymore than any other template that mainly concentrates on other article types. If that were the case, then the vast majority of articlespace-purpose templates would be considered WP Bio-tagable, which is somewhat absurd (IMHO). Your thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I cant't get that page to load so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at, but you seem to assume that the two projects are mutually exclusive, and I don't believe that to be true. As I see it, the template concerns a filmmaker, hence it falls under the scope of WP:FILMBIO and hence the biography tag. If you're trying to remove biography articles from the film project then that's fine, but I don't see how or why that would extend to removing pages from other projects. Either way the tagging is fairly benign, but I would prefer to leave it in place due to it's relevance to the other project. PC78 (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes a while to load, but it's our only reliable way of determining improper cross-tags. Being as no other "director's works" template is cross-tagged (and they all link to the director bio too), I would STRONGLY urge you to reconsider. Otherwise, the converse is tagging all of these templates, which will render the toolserver tool useless, as the links we're looking for will be buried underneath template links (which unfortunately are not rendered as "Template talk:Foo" but "Talk:Foo" due to what I presume is a coding error). I don't see your argument though - should every template that contains even one link to a bio article automatically get a Bio tag, even if the template primarily exists to link to a vastly superior number of articles of a non-bio nature? The implications are quite large, and better discussed at a project-level discussion instead of protecting a single template. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is merely the toolserver that needs refinement? As the primary article for the template is a biography, I would say that the bio tag is appropriate. I think you're being a touch dramatic when you say there are "large implications" -- I regard it as fairly trivial, and Bio tags are not really our concern as members of WP:FILM. Still, I'll ask the question at WP:FILMBIO, see how others feel about it. PC78 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have raised the issue here. PC78 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Miss Julie Memorial LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter: Special Pride 2009 Booty call edition

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XVIII: June 24, 2009 Yo, happy Pride y'all - are you ready for your close-up? Stonewall riots How do you change the world? You can start by writing an incredible article for the world's encyclopedia. Moni3 kicks it old school again with Stonewall riots - a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn. [...] [T]hey have become the defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world. It's a featured article hitting the mainpage this Sunday to mark the 40th anniversary of the events. So first off, wow! Clever and cool. Moni3 has been recently named hottest delegate to Obama's bookclub but that may not be official yet. (Shhh!) Otto4711 mentioned that gee we really should swamp the DYK section with LGBT-related articles for use on the 28th as well. We have eight or so in the holding area and if you push yourself to get an article together you might be able to get in on the fun. Do this now! The official rules for DYKs can be found here. Once you have expanded an article 5-fold or created an article with at least 1,500 characters of prose, place your DYK thread here. Use this handy tool to count your 1,500 characters. As a suggestion, when you add your potential hook, include the character count and a link to the source(s) that confirm the hook. These will be confirmed anyway but may help. Trans quotes needed for Portal:Transgender The layout for the individual quotes is here (just copy/paste into one of the red links on Portal:Transgender/Random quote). Then this counter has to be upped to match the new # of total quotes (not counting quote zero). Obama proclamation On June 1, President Barack Obama declared June 2009 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, citing the riots as a reason to "commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans". Excerpts at the bottom. F*ck me I'm famous I was interviewed by Wikipedia Signpost, the weekly in-house newsletter, for the WikiProject report. The Signpost has nearly 1,000 Wikipedian subscribers and arguably many of those folks actually read it. It came about rather quickly and my worst fears - that it was an elaborate hoax by a troll - were apparently unfounded. I hope y'all feel I did fine by the project, I did my best to avoid the phrase "man-humping, cock-sucking, doggy-style loving queer" but otherwise did ok. Free image appeal A friendly reminder to consider taking photos while you're out and about at various Dyke marches and Pride parades. Consider donating them to the world at Wikicommons. I'm sooo totally over having to deal with lovely images being deleted and argued about. If they are just free they are then also freely usable worldwide. And no, they don't need photos of your cha-cha or hoo-hoo-dilly. Chaz Bono Sonny and Cher's daughter was a famous lesbian and now he's a famous transman, possibly the most famous in the world. This also serves as a friendly reminder that we recently updated Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines - it's not perfect but should help inform on those gnip-gnop battles that do seem to drag on, and not in the good way. R U Popular? Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages is a new handy place to see which LGBT-tagged pages are the most popular in any given month. Article alerts As part of the redecorating at our talkpage, the article alerts and keyword search alerts are handily located at the top of the page. Always fascinating to see what's up. All help appreciated on those. Glambert Adam Lambert is soooo gay - surprised? Neither is anyone else. Nuff said. David Ogden Stiers was outed but apparently he wasn't terribly in either. Community Quilt reminder Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Quilt - update it and add yourself! Our own little IRC home The LGBT studies project does have its own free Internet Relay Chat channel, #wikipedia-en-lgbt connect, for coordination, collaboration and socializing. This channel is hosted on Freenode and can be accessed in one of two ways: If you already have an IRC client, click the link to the left. If you do not have an IRC client, you'll need to get one installed on your computer first. Once you've done this, then click on the link to the left. For more general information on IRC and a listing of other useful Wikipedia-related channels, see Wikipedia:IRC channels. The project had at one point another channel at #LGBTproject connect but as the original people associated with the setting up and administration of that channel have seemed to have disappeared, this new channel has been set up. Plus the new channel is inline with required naming conventions for Wikipedia related IRC channels. So, feel free to use this channel. Such a channel gives opportunity to discuss the latest happening on articles, the LGBT project itself, latest happening in your life with "wiki-friends" here, etc.. You can say things on there you normally wouldn't here on Wikipedia (keeping it civil of course) like talk about the latest hot guy/girl or tell a joke.. you get the point. Anyway, see you there - eventually! LGBT to-do list (held over from last edition) Give out more barnstars, and let each other know that what they're doing is valued. Create a guide to stave off burnout, because editors in this project get burned out faster than others. There are many hills to climb. Bring back the monthly collaboration project. Participate in LGBT Peer reviews. Get familiar with the characteristics of Good Articles and get our top priority articles to WP:GA. Keep our project page and open tasks template updated. Use the Newsletter, Moni3! You can suggest what to send out in the newsletter, too! Offer research materials, copy editing, ideas, and support to your fellow editors. Keep the project talk page informed of problems and discussions we should know about. “ There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. [I]n both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism. [...] LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. [...] As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. [...] I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists. - Barack Obama, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2009, The White House (June 1, 2009). ” Click your heels three times ladies and gents, home is where hot is! -- Banjeboi To receive this newsletter in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Template:ArticleHistory's talk page about merging Template:OnThisDay into the template. There's been no opposition to doing so, but I need someone to add the code for it to format properly in the banner. I know you've worked well with some of the film templates, and would like to know if you'd be interested/able in formatting the template. There's a sandbox for tinkering with the coding. If you can't do you know somebody that can? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The June 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) 08:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Colors on infoboxes like that one, should be set via class, not by hardcoding the colors. This is so that different skins can show the boxes in colors appropriate for them. For example, the template on the top of your talk page, {{Auto archiving notice}}, correctly is colored by class. (Specifically, the class tmbox) Prodego ^talk 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of a specific discussion of it. But I think this should demonstrate the issue: in monobook, in vector. Prodego ^talk 23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, PC78. I notice you rescued a delete-able stub that was apparently started by our old buddy. I might be more "inclusion"-leaning than you, but my feeling is that every film by a director as major as Im deserves an article. I'm deep in the midst of a Japanese pink film director/film article-creating project right now, but if you come across any more poorly put-together stubs on films by major directors and don't feel like doing the work at the time, just let me know. I'll certainly be happy to chip in to save them. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. I wonder how he's able to hone in on so many obscurities when there are so many major films left to start articles on... I'll take a crack at those Shin Sang-ok films later on today. Dekkappai (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow-- I spoke too soon about Mayumi George Kennedy and Reiko Oshida appear in it, and Google news is full of citations to it... I'm just doing a once-over, but it looks like an article-worthy film. Dekkappai (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, PC78. I rewrote the Bun-Rye's Story article after I noticed you linked it at the Yu Hyun-mok page, then went out for breakfast and you beat me to the upload in the meantime :) Anyway, I added what little bits I could salvage from my rewrite into yours. Since I'm on holiday, I'll be working mainly on my off-wiki not-safe-at-work project for a couple days, but I'll take a look at those other articles when I get a chance. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my assessment. I didn't realize that the film project didn't use C class. I've changed it from a stub to a start class. Thanks again, and happy editing. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I note you tagged a plot summary as too long. Please comment on the talk page for Doghouse (film) with some specifics as to how you think the article can be improved. I realise the summary is long and untidy but before I added it there wasn't much summary at all and I could do with some suggestions on how to approach it and help with the cleanup. -- Horkana (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering, could you review the rewrite so far and share any additional thoughts? I'd like to implement the draft soon. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I see there's a fair bit of discussion going on there! I won't have time to go through it all tonight, but I'll try and add my thoughts in the next few days. Fell free to give me a nudge if I haven't responded by the weekend. PC78 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The new draft was implemented, if you didn't notice. So no pressure to review it, unless you see red flags in the rewrite. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I decided to assess some unassessed articles. I was wondering, how have you handled articles that were not primarily about films? For example, an article about a play for in which there is a film adaptation section but no separate film article. Makes me wonder if the defunct "Films based on books" department could be applied for a splitting task like this. (Begets the question: Does a film adaptation section always necessitate splitting into its own article?) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Erik. This may not be the answer you were hoping for, but I haven't been handling such articles at all, just quietly avoiding them until we know what to do with them. I guess it ties in with past discussions about articles such as Bane (comics), i.e. those that have only a secondary connection to film. Personally I'm tempted to say that we exclude them, though we may want to think about tagging them in some other way. PC78 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello and my greetings. Hi, PC78. My name is World Cinema Writer (call me WCW). I see you are a famous WP:WIKIPEDIAN. I would like to ask a little help from you. It's about WP:IPA in English. You see, I'm trying to bring up an article to WP:FA. I'm keeping it in my sub page. It's User:World Cinema Writer/TM. I wrote the name of the film in IPA also. Just, could you help me check whether the IPA I made was correct or not. Thank you, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say I'm "famous"! :) I'm afraid I don't have much understanding of IPA so I can't be of much help to you in this regard; you might want to ask one of the users listed at Category:User ipa-5 instead. It looks like you're off to a fine start with the article, but you should be aware that an FA is unlikely for a film that is yet to be released; also, you should be mindful of the guidelines for future films. Keep up the good work though! Regards. PC78 (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, what bugs are there? I've given the code quite a bit of testing. A friendly ping prior to hitting the undo button wouldn't have gone amiss either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already commented on your talk page, no doubt as you were writing this. Let's keep all discussion there, shall we? PC78 (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there PC78! I saw that you added a {{hangon}} tag to a page which you created, Template:Infobox Korean name/meta conversion. This is good, but in the process you removed the tag requesting deletion under CSD G6. Even though there is a hangon on the page, the deletion template should remain there. But don't worry, this doesn't mean that the page is going to get deleted. Make sure you edit the talk page of the page nominated for deletion, located at Template talk:Infobox Korean name/meta conversion, administrators will look at your reason why the page should remain before they decide what to do. Thanks - SDPatrolBot (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Why is the first header being predicated on the existence of an image? I can't work out why the previous logic wasn't preferable (as it genuinely allowed for said section to be omitted if it contained no data, which is how infoboxes are supposed to work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This is merely how the existing template works (and has always worked). If you're looking for a rationale, I guess it's because the heading is superfluous when there is no image separating the title from the main data. Compare existing transclusions at Romaja and Soju, for example. {{Chinese}} uses the same logic, IIRC. PC78 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If the template can be understood if it's omitted, then I don't see the value in keeping it to be honest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's a fairly trivial concern though, IMO. PC78 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we're working on it right now then we might as well discuss it. Personally I'm opposed to headers which do little more than point out what the box is for, which should be evident from the content.

Incidentally, I see you removed the bold from the labels. I think this should be kept, as if we're going to keep this in infobox format we shouldn't be arbitrarily overriding the default styling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree on your latter point; there is no obligation to use the defaults of {{infobox}} (which are themselves arbitrary), and we should seek to preserve the defaults of this template unless there is good reason not to. PC78 (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Consistency and accessibility are both good reasons IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not all {{infobox}}-based templates use those defaults, though. Not sure what you mean by "accessability". Regardless, we are again talking about a relatively minor aspect of the box. PC78 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor or not, if it's important enough to edit then it's important enough to discuss.

This edit actually increases code size by nearly 10%, along with introducing potentially 40 callouts. That is a definite regression. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That edit was vital if the template is to retain its current functionality; the code you wrote was woefully inadequate in that regard. If you can see any way to help streamline things then great. You might also want to take a look at how it looks in IE7. PC78 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again you've chosen invective over a technical description of the faults. This makes collaboration exceedingly difficult. Using my mind-reading powers for a second time, I assume that you're referring to the questionable insistence that the field orders for MR and RR be re-ordered for North Korean articles? That could be accounted for by adding some redundant duplicate labels in the infobox code, which was how it was catered for last time. It'll still be hairy, but nowhere near as bad as the unparseable mess that it was. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It might help things if you could be a bit less defensive. I don't expect you to be able to read my mind; I do expect you to have a thorough understanding of the template you are attempting to rewrite, and that appears to be somewhat lacking. Yes, I am referring to the requirement that RR and MR be reversed for North Korean articles. I have attempted this using duplicate labels myself but had no success; if you feel you can do better then I welcome your attempt and look forward to seeing what you come up with. But I also refer to the categorisation for missing parameters, and would appreciate it if you could look into the browser issue. If you have specific questions for me then please ask them (you did not ask me any in your previous post); I am also not a mind reader. PC78 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue this on template talk in due time. I seem to recall that we had a similarly initially negative but ultimately positive interaction regarding {{infobox film}}, so I reckon we'll come to an understanding here in due course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. :) PC78 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How are you getting on with this? If you've time to revert uncontroversial changes for no reason then I assume you've time to work on this a bit more. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting on with it at all – I seem to recall leaving the ball in your court. Regarding the width, it's a rather arbitrary and unconstructive change. PC78 (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to direct all future discussion to the template talk, as forking all the technical discussion in here has been the opposite of a productive decision. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The July 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) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it might be technically feasible to have the template add in a category (which we'd make hidden) for any articles which have no task force parameters tagged? This might be useful down the line for determining which areas as of yet untasked have the greatest participation. Potentially down the line, as the category got smaller and smaller, we could also use it to quickly identify articles which fall into an existing task force, but as are yet untagged. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like this? PC78 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A little faster next time, please. ;) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The number of articles in that category has come right down, presumably as a result of the recent bot run for the American task force. It currently represents about 14% of our aricles, but I seem to recall it previously being around 40-45%. I guess tagging for the British task force will take another chunk out of it. PC78 (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

When converting infoboxes to use {{Infobox}} (an otherwise worthwhile pursuit), please take care not to discard the microformat mark-up, as you did here, contrary to the caution in the template's documentation. I've restored it in this case. Please let me know if you need any help or clarification. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, but unless I'm mistaken much of what you just added was not present in the earlier version of the template. Nonetheless, I shall endeavour to be more careful in future. Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I took the opportunity to add some additional paramters, while restoring the mandatory (in hCard microformats) vcard & fn classes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what your talking about and have and example in my user pages. There are three examples at User:Droll/bug. The first and thrid had been working correctly up until a few days ago if I remember correctly. This bug must have been reintroduced recently. The second example has never been worked. I would never presume to understand the the convert template and the last time I had this problem the people at Template talk:Convert where very helpful. I'll start a new thread there. –droll [chat] —The preceding comment was added on 17:29, 16 August 2009.

I noticed that you were the last to edit template:infobox/sandbox. I'm not sure if you just synced it or if your going to be using it. Thank. –droll [chat]

I was going to have a tinker to see if could resolve the compatability issue with {{Infobox2}}, but I'm not sure if I'll have time for it. Fell free to revert if you want. Regards. PC78 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I did some experimenting. see:

User:Droll/sandbox 1/doc

User:Droll/sandbox 1

User:Droll/infobox

The last is a striped down template. The bug is still there. Feel free to work on any of these files. I've going to work on something else for awhile. –droll [chat]

One last observation for today. The bug was there before the template implemented the use of the sub-template row –droll [chat]

Thanks for your consideration and your message. There are too many little things I dislike about the infobox template. I'm really not the in love with infobox2 either. I really don't what to get into those concerns right now. I've got a hunch people would feel I was being unreasonable. Its not just the fields. I'm old timer and I still worry about overhead. I'm working on something new that I hope will reduce overhead; maintain code readability and increase flexability. There is a learning curve so it will take a while to develop. Thanks again. –droll [chat] —The preceding comment was added on 19:14, 19 August 2009.

Please replace it, your comments are as important as mine! TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got no idea what you're talking about. PC78 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, PC, if you have a time, could you look into villages articles of Gyeongju, such as Angang-eup and Hyeongok-myeon and {{Infobox Korean settlement}} ? I think the map position located in the bottom of the infobox is easily to be unnoted for the too distant location as compared to {{Infobox settlement}} like Gyeongju. If you agree with my thought, would you move up or swap the map parameter to a suitable place? Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've placed the map under the main image. Let me know what you think. PC78 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the work, but I dont' know it is just me, but Wolseong-dong, Gyeongju looks same to me even with your alteration and reloading the page several times. What if you move down the map under the "Korean name" and above "Statistics" sections? If you look at Gampo-eup, the map location is a bit awkward (or my eyes have been too familiar with the previous setting) How about arranging the map position like below? (> refers to the light blue bar in the infobox).

>Gampo-up

image

image caption

>Korean name

hangul

hanja

rr=

mr=

>Location map

map

mapcation

>Statistics

area

--Caspian blue 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Try doing a null edit on that page if you still can't see any difference. I'm not so sure about moving the map to below "Korean name", though "Korean name" is now quite low if there is both a phot and a map. Perhaps "Korean name" should be moved to the top, or maybe it would just be better to use {{Infobox settlement}} (I know it's been talked about before). PC78 (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be like the image on the right (calling it B, and your changed setting A). Indeed, the Korean name section become located quite low with the A setting, but well, the {{Infobox settlement}} is too complicate to use when it comes to villages, towns, and wards...--Caspian blue 23:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

& Category:Failed requests for biography A-Class review have been restored for your updating. Skier Dude (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I closed this one, and I trust that you and Andy and others can handle all the necessary redirecting and merging of options. I will leave it up to you all to figure out if "Christian leader" is the best name for the merged template. Thanks for being bold and taking the first step. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of the redirecting now. Regards. PC78 (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I will start at the bottom. I may not get to the middle before you do as I worry about |living=, |listas= and {{WPBS}}. Okay? JimCubb (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. PC78 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The rest are probably all yours. I need to change locations and have way too much to do for me to get back to this today. Happy editing! JimCubb (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The August 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) 04:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding these. Sometimes I feel like I'm running some of the day-to-day for the project to some extent, and organization isn't particularly my forte. I've not worked much with projects and I don't particularly know what is needed, what is available, and what should be going on. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, your input would be appreciated at WT:KOREA#What would be proper titles for eup, myeon, dong?. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you mentor this user and give him some guidance on editing. He seems to have potential as a contributor to Korean cinema, thanks. Himalayan 18:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Weird space on top is now gone.--Caspian blue 22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello I would like to ask if you could provide an external link to http://asianmediawiki.com/Jun-gi_Lee for Wikipedia's Jun Ki Lee page. I wrote his biography and you are welcome to use it for wikipedia's biography on Jun-ki Lee. If you need help on editing his wikipedia page let me know as well. Thanks - --RamenLover (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that website is on the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. I couldn't add the link to the article even if I wanted to. PC78 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

--- Hello I spoke with Beetstra and Mife_Lifeguard who handles that list and they said would remove it if an editor asked. Possibly could you place a request? Thanks --- --RamenLover (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how links to this website will benefit Wikipedia. However, you do not need me or any other user to make this request for you. If you want to get asianmediawiki off the blacklist, you should go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and make your request there. Alternatively, if you just want to link to a single page (Jun-gi Lee, for example) you can make a request for that specific page at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. PC78 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

--- Hello, I did ask in the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist page and they told me I needed an editor to make such a request to greenlight such a request. Could you look at our http://asianmediawiki.com/Geun-seok_Jang page and the wikipedia page Jang Geun-suk and http://asianmediawiki.com/Hye-seon_Ku and wikipedia's Koo Hye Sun and see if it could not provide help? I can also list many more pages if needed. Thanks -- --RamenLover (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't make that request for you because I do not believe that this website meets the criteria at WP:EL. Instead of asking individual editors like myself, I would suggest that you follow the advice given to you by Beetstra and ask at a suitable WikiProject, i.e. WP:KOREA, WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:FILMBIO or WP:MUSICIAN. PC78 (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the clarifications I misunderstood Beestra then. I'll ask in those departments then, thanks -- --RamenLover (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit I know little about technicalities in GA/FA. I've marked in my memory the need for the Sheen article to be either improved or delisted. How does one go about delisting a GA? Can it simply be done? I'm not keen on trying to improve that particular article to actually meet GA, and apparently comprehensiveness was not a factor in its passing. Any suggestions? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to ask as I haven't had much involement with the GA process. Best I can do is point you to WP:GAR. PC78 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a tiny request. Could try to avoid curly brackets in section headers, because it stops the "→" link on the history and watchlist from working. For example, Template_talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#Support_for_.7B.7Btl.7CBLP_others.7D.7D should lead to the relevant section, but doesn't. Hopefully this will be fixed some day. Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, PC78. Can I ask you a favor? I've been working on Gyeongju to prevent from FA delisting, and many copy-editors thankfully have helped improving the article by copy-editing and proof-reading on expanded contents. However, some of expanded contents are in need of proofreading since their copy-editing, and a reviewer has pointed out the captions to images are awkward[6], but I don't know how to improve them[7] to comply to his demand. So if you can spare time, would you copy-edit the captions and alts and some sections such as Gyeongju#Cuisine, Gyeongju#Media, and the fishery industry and commerce-related paragraph at Gyeongju#Economy and Hwarangdo at Gyeongju#Education section? I'm looking forward to your answer. Thanks.--Caspian blue 11:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. :) PC78 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Caspian blue 13:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh! Why not. I've nominated myself. Thanks for the suggestion! Cheers~! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'll research the position and see if it is a good idea.Stetsonharry (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I see you've got a couple of interested people and that should cover it, shouldn't it? I never know when my health is going to prevent me from being active, as it did in the spring and six months is a long commitment because of that. If you don't get enough to stand, let me know and I'll try. Thanks for asking me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. I'm sorry but I got confused with "rv" as "reverting vandalism". Anyway, I reverted my last edits to your edits. Hope I didn't offend you harshly.

P.S. Do you mind helping me with the plot on Running Turtle? I watched the film about several months ago, but I'm not quite sure if the plot I made is quite accurate. Jpark3909, 16:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand banners, templates, etc. Thus I copy from another article on same subject and/or in same project. If you have a better template for me to use on talk pages, I would appreciate it if you would dub it over onto my talk page. I will use it henceforth.

In the meantime, because the banners do misclassify stubs, I will hold off creating talk pages on World War I aces.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I fill in the info box and write the lead when I create these stubs. The talk page is cut and paste. If you have a better set of banners to cut and paste on the talk page, I'll do it your way.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

---

We crossed messages here. That can happen when both parties talk/type simultaneously.

I have adopted your banners for talk pages. Herewith, I present the first example, in Kenneth Porter.

Thanks for the heads up and the help.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I may be partly to blame for this problem. If there is some way that Georgejdorner could keep the code for the templates without causing errors, that would be great. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You might find AWB useful for fixing these. See Special:Contributions/Msgj for some of my recent efforts. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I tend to be pig-headed and stubborn when it comes to conveniences like that, though. :D PC78 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should discard an idea before trying it! Anyway I found another source of category=no, in this template which was being substituted onto loads of talk pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not discarded the idea, it's something I'll keep in mind. :) I'll take that template to TfD since your speedy tag was removed. PC78 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that is necessary, now that I've fixed the category parameter issue. If it's saving a productive editor some time then that is what templates are for. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Too late, but the template is unused and I think it's better to transclude the banners directly. If it's something the user is using to subst onto talk pages, then it belongs in his user space. Did you discuss the template with Altenmann anywhere? He shouldn't have removed the speedy tag from a page he created himself. PC78 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I am receiving conflicting advice about the talk page templates for stubs from yourself and  Martin (MSGJ · talk). Until such time as I receive clarification about these templates, I will be creating stubs without talk pages.

When it becomes clear which template is actually the one needed, I will return to those stubs and create their talk pages.

Given the fact there are 500 to 600 of these potential stubs, I would much prefer a "copy and paste" template.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for writing it. I was actually going to write it tonight (I was hoping that we'd have finalized the details for the drive but some of the coordinators haven't had the time to reply yet). I'll make some more minor changes and send it out now (if AWB is working, if not I'll send it out tomorrow hopefully). Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The September 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) 06:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your WikiProject Films Award is greatly appreciated. It's nice to know people are reading my contributions! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you were changing the reel.svg|filmportal template to filmportal. I try to add the former to articles I run into, with reference to the relevant memo on the film portal: "Things you can do/ * Add Portal|Film|Film reel.svg to the See also section of film-related articles." Because I am not frequently following the portal news or newsletters, but I am mainly interested in film, can you let me know the reson you have been preferring one over the other? Thanks. --leandros (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the instructions at the portal. Basically, {{film portal}} is a conveniance template that sets the link and icon automatically so you don't have to do it manually in each article with {{portal}}. It also uses the correct icon (it was changed ages ago), which was my main reason for making the changes. PC78 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that shows me the way to use the right template from now on :)--leandros (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my clumsiness on List of American Ballet Theater Fall 2009 repertory‎. — Robert Greer (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar and The Right Half of the Half Barnstar
		What a way to find a formatting bug. The WPBiography conversion alone is easily worth a whole star, and WPIndia as well is at least another half each :D Thoroughly well done all round. Happy‑melon 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, but I only really deserve it for {{WPBiography}}; the other things were nothing to do with me. ;) PC78 (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Think you owe WOSlinker half a star :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for editing and categorizing! --Globe.explorer (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw your note at WT:ACTOR about the split priorities, thanks. I'm a little confused though. We still use the word "priority" in the template, but the word importance is how it is categorized? Sort me out!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? The banner shouldn't be doing that, and as far as I can tell it isn't. :S PC78 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going off the changes to the assessment page. The grid for priority has "Top-Importance", etc., but just above it, the list goes to "Category:Top-priority biography (actors and filmmakers) articles", etc. I can't find any listing here for actors & filmmakers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean this edit? That was just me screwing things up. [8] :) They're just template names, you shouldn't pay too much attention to them.

Category:Top-priority biography (actors and filmmakers) articles isn't categorised in Category:Top-importance articles, though it probably should be. PC78 (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then it would be okay for me to add actor priorities to the categories for importance? I'm not sure how one would go about that. It is apparently more complicated than just adding those categories to the main category. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. :) PC78 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'll check the other priorities. I'm apparently a little confuzzled tonight! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you visit here and comment? Thanks. –xeno^talk 21:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, but you spelled "than" wrong =) Category:Unassessed biography articles smaller that 1,500 bytes. After the inheritance task is complete do you think Xenobot should tag these as "class=stub|auto=size" ? –xeno^talk 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Can't believe I missed that! :) At some point, yes, but I'd like to have a proper look at what's in the category first. PC78 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just used CatScan to cross reference the category with Category:Start-Class articles and it's found 146 articles (as well as one C-Class and two List-Class articles). These could do with checking for false positives, though it's probably going to take a few more days (at least) for everything to filter through. There's no hurry with this, so I'll come back to it on the weekend. PC78 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Double doh!! I'd better get a list of those articles now, otherwise your bot is going to give them inherited assessments and remove them from the category. PC78 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Should have a hidden maint cat: "Biography articles smaller than 1500 bytes rated start or higher" –xeno^talk 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting editors' help There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.

I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your wonderful copy-editing to Gyeongju, which successfully survived from WP:FAR since October 15, 2009 --Caspian blue 05:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your re-evaluation of the article! I'll work on citations when I get a chance. Can you maybe give a little more detail in what you would like to see improved in terms of coverage? I'm perhaps feeling that there isn't too much information out there on the film, as it is a minor blip in the overall history of cinema. I feel that the quality of the article isn't meant to be dependent on the amount of information on the topic but on how thoroughly the topic is covered, and I feel that there isn't too much more to add in terms of coverage (I'll recheck my sources to make sure). Do you have any suggestions for starting points that I should look into a bit more? Thanks for your time and input! Sevey13 (talk) Sevey13 (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You've just got too many good ideas not to be an admin :D Happy‑melon 14:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully he's giving this the consideration it deserves :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll have a proper look at this later in the week when I have more free time. If I do become an admin, I'll have to see about blocking you two troublemakers. :D PC78 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You might be able to get those icon changes done on WPBannerMeta then. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish the long and conspicuous "red link" turn to a stable "blue link". It is up to you. :-)Caspian blue 00:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Poke? Happy‑melon 16:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It will take more than just a poke. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am still mulling this over in case you're wondering. :)

Poke? Happy‑melon 20:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Poke? :P Happy‑melon 09:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Poke? :| Happy‑melon 08:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you still pondering this?? Or trying to think of reasons not to do it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Part pondering, part ignoring. :) While I have been tempted to take you guys up on this offer, my feelings haven't really changed from last time around, i.e. I don't think this is something I really need, and I'm not even sure if it's something I want. I guess I've dragged it out for long enough, though, so if you want an answer then I guess it's no. Thanks anyway chaps, I do appreciate the thought. PC78 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you recently redirected the Pirate Radio (US Film) page to The Boat That Rocked. The reason for the separate page is that the film has been substantially changed from its UK release, not just the title and poster art. For US residents it is very confusing when they look for information about Pirate Radio and find only information about The Boat That Rocked, or the page they look for redirects them to the page for The Boat That Rocked. It is extremely important that this film have its own page, thank you for your understanding. SOM123Wiki (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please move this article back to Anacondas: Trail of Blood - this is the official title per Syfy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I only moved the talk page. PC78 (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh, forgot you weren't an admin. Sorry :P I can't move it over the redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wait. Anacondas: Trail of Blood appears to have been cut & paste to Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood at the start of the month. Thsi will need a history merge, I think. PC78 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I posted a summary here about the ships template status. I just want to make sure everything is in order before I request the edit. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with that image. I wasn't entirely sure what I should have done with it.JPBarrass (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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) 06:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There is currently a discussion here regarding the use of navbox awards templates for Razzie Awards that partly includes the "Worst Picture" template related to WP:FILM. Your comments are very welcome. (P.S. Please note I am not canvassing. There seems to be a lot of regular contributors currently absent from Wikipedia and all comments are needed.) Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is now consensus for the class, so I'd like to work on implementing this quickly so we can get the drive started. Would you be willing to setup the formatting for the banner to accept C-class? We should also remove the Future/A-classes as well as the improvement parameters (except for image/infobox) as well. I'm away from home for family matters and don't have too much time to look at it, so if another administrator needs to make the changes, that works for me. I'll be starting the drive the beginning of next week as well as sending out the newsletter. If you have any questions please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is your sandbox ready to go for moving to the actual banner? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The banner was updated yesterday. Sorry, I meant to let you guys know at WT:FILMC but assumed you were keeping tabs on it. PC78 (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since article talk pages should be only used for improvement of pertinent subjects, I'll leave a casual question for you; why are British so crazy about these two stuffs? I just saw a couple of clips of them, but well...one was too old one (from 1970s), and the other is a lot related to British history (and not funny) This question may sound silly, but just have wondered for a while. --Caspian blue 03:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never been much of a Doctor Who fan, so I can't really help you there. The current series with David Tennant has been very popular though, so perhaps you would find that more to your liking? Monty Python is very funny, but I guess it won't be to everyone's liking -- maybe you need a greater appreciation of British humour? TRy watching some of the clips at http://uk.youtube.com/user/MontyPython. PC78 (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I intend to translate the articles to Korean Wikipedia since visitors of the pages are so high on English Wikipedia, so wanted to get some scoop from British. :-) Well, I do highly appreciate British comedy such as Keeping Up Appearances, Black Books, and Father Ted. When I first watched several episodes of Mr. Bean on TV, I loled during the whole time. But Blackadder, The Vicar of Dibley, Are You Being Served? and some comedy series related to "social status" or "history" are beyond my understanding; why they are viewed as "funny"? However, that is a difference between cultures. I might give a try with Monty Python though later. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I could really say why they are funny. It's probably got as much to do with personal differences as it has cultural differences. I've never liked Mr. Bean, but I've always been a fan of Blackadder. :) PC78 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You said in the discussion at templates for discussion that there could be a banner on the file pages on Commons, as this would be visible in Wikipedia as well. It actually sounds interesting. The problem is, however, that it specifically is the talk pages that I'd like to centralize, and so far I haven't seen a way to make the links on the image talk pages in Commons to appear in Wikipedia as well. There already is a link to the central discussion on the image main pages in Commons. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war as you have been doing at this article. There is no reason for the original poster to be replaced. PC78 (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to start a war, you are by not allowing a simple change. I am not trying change the description, just a poster. Your version was small I could hardly identify what was going in the poster. This one is more clear. They are both for the same movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleen16 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war as you have been doing at this article. There is no reason for the original poster to be replaced. PC78 (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to start a war, you are by not allowing a simple change. Your version was small I could hardly identify what was going in the poster. This one is more clear. They are both for the same movie.

You are starting an edit war. I have contested your change to the article, yet you are continuing to replace the image. The original image is not "too small", it is with size restrictions for fair use images and the poster itself is more identifiable to English-language audiences. Please discuss before continuing to push this change. PC78 (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing it. I have resized the image just as you asked. Colleen16 01:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, discussion comes before you force a change, not during or after. The image is still too large and you have not explained why the poster should be changed. PC78 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I just explained why but you don't seem to be listening to what I am saying. The objects of the photo are too small. And I could hardly see the title even when it is in Korean. It's just one poster I changed what's the big deal PC78? Force a change? I thought you were allowed to change information on Wikipedia that's why it's open freely, isn't it? My poster is now 350px and is under 100MB. It also looks like the same size as yours. It's just that in this one the objects are closer, so you see what's happening more clearly.Colleen16 01:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean? The image_size= field only needs to be filled if the width of the image is less than 200 pixels I never read anywhere on that page that said it needs to be 300px. And look at how many pixels this [9] in comparison to both of ours. So what is the maximum size for Infobox images? Colleen16 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Omg, are you joking. Your pulling my leg right. Cause that makes no sense. It doesn't matter what it looks like the fact that Smallville is 500 × 275 pixels, file size: 187 KB and bad quality, Your poster is 300 × 428 pixels, file size: 119 KB, and the one I uploaded is 350 × 501 pixels, file size: 101 KB. And you mean to tell me that everyone else's is good except the one I uploaded. And you only want to keep it because it's in the UK. And how do you know that it is international where is your proof PC78? And what if I made it even smaller would you still accept it?Colleen16 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We're still having the same discussion in more than one place. The guideline I referred you to regarding fair use images in film articles requires an image to be no more than 300px on at least one side. If you reduce the size of the image further then that solves one problem, but I still don't see how it benefits the article. PC78 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what it's cool. I will not fight over something so petty. Thanks for the extra info. Colleen16 02:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little curious why you created numerous categories such as Category:Films to be released in 2013, despite not populating them. While they may have a notice at the top saying not to delete them, this does not actually make them exempt from WP:CSD#C1. I would not consider this the type of category intended to be periodically empty. Is there any reason why these categories can't wait to be created until they actually have pages to populate them with? VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion" are exempt from CSD#C1. The categories have been in use for over a year and have been recently (within the last few days) depopulated. I'd like to see if they can be used elsewhere before dispensing with them. PC78 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I know of that exception. I created it when I proposed the current wording for that criteria (which was adopted). When I created it, I had categories intended to be empty in mind. In retrospect, I should have worded it better. Under either interpretation, however, I don't see why such categories would likely become empty on occasion. Sure, films may change their projected release date from time to time, but I don't think that would happen often enough to expect such categories become empty often. Either way, however, it seems these were recently improperly(?) unpopulated- I saw a large group of them had appeared in the empty categories report, and assumed you had recently created them. If these were improperly emptied than I would suggest investigating that, unless there was some mass AfD that happened recently that I'm not aware of. VegaDark (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, depopulation was intentional, but as I say I'd like to try and find some other use for them. The message on each of these categories is just a standard boilerplate for all categories populated by {{Film}}, but generally speaking such categories shouldn't be deleted when empty, and that's why I think the exception to CSD#C1 is a good thing. I'll try and sort them out sooner rather than later, but if you're looking for something to delete in the meantime there's a long list of obsolete categories at the foot of WT:FILMC. Regards. PC78 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed on your user page that you know all about templates. I tried to correct the above template but could'nt. Could you do something about it. It's linked to numerous pages. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. You were just missing a closing }} at the end of the template code. Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As the official colour mixer for WikiProject assessments, I would like to consult you on an idea raised at Template talk:Inactive WikiProject banner which is to use a dimmed colour for projects which are considered inactive. Any ideas you may have would be appreciated! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

—Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the topic parameter is only needed when {{class mask}} is placed on a subpage. Otherwise it has no purpose. Well done fixing up all these templates, you are turning into a real gnome! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- purely for information, would it be possible to explain what difference your edits make? I'm not objecting in any way, I just have no clue about what is going on here, and the template documentation is opaque to me. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have just corrected a small error with that edit. I'll leave PC to explain it all to you though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The banner was previously using the extended quality scale which includes Image-Class and Portal-Class, but an error message on the template page was warning that the relevent categories did not exist. Since the project did not have any pages marked as Image-Class or Portal-Class, I figured it was a good bet that they weren't required and my edit disabled them while leaving everything else intact. Unfortunately I cocked it up a bit, but thanks to Martin for fixing it on my behalf. Hopefully that makes sense to you. PC78 (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that he has faked these- to do so, he would have to have created multiple fake email addresses and impersonated other people. However, checking the tickets again, I am not going to rule that out- they look to have been written by the same hand. This is a nasty, nasty situation, and I would not be opposed to the removal of the images if they can be tied to a known sockmaster. OTRS is not infalliable- it's a system that is designed to be user-friendly, meaning it can easily be abused if someone wants to actively lie. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the others... File:LeeJunKi BDAY.jpg was dealt with by Howcheng (talk · contribs), who appears to have gone through a number of checks- try contacting him. File:Lee Jun Ki K&C.jpg was handled by Stifle (talk · contribs), and, again, he went through some checks, but may be worth contacting. The others have no OTRS permission as far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:PC78 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as PC78's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear PC78! Peace, Rlevse 00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This user which is sending you a message have seen you doing something to a The Prodigy-related thing. That looks like you are going to be in The Prodigy Wikiproject! This WikiProject is founded by the now Defunct, but blocked, User:Guitarherochristopher, and It aims to Improve Coverage of the Alternative Electronic Punk Rock-hop trio, The Prodigy. Join the project now or later. This message is sent by 75.101.66.46 (talk) at 00:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Hi, I noticed that you have been doing some editing to WikiProject Latin, I was wandering whether or not you wanted to join. 95jb14 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

Thanks, but no. I've just been doing some project banner cleanup, I have no specific interest in the Latin project. PC78 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The November 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) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

With our new open position, I was wondering if you would be interested in filling the spot. You still remain very active with the project, and already help with maintaining many of its pages (including technical issues we seem to always run across). I have always found your input to be valuable, even if we haven't always agreed on each topic. If you're interested in filling the position for the remainder of the term, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, what the heck, I don't mind filling in until the next election. Does this make me the most unelected coordinater ever? :) PC78 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't redirect that because I intended to fix it and later have it transclude the other template. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you need to do anything to it. The template is no longer used and is not transcluded anywhere, which is why I tagged it as deprecated. PC78 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I work on these or are you going to be stepping on my toes each time I try to do something here? I'm starting to get a little frustrated. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest, though I'm hardly "stepping on your toes". It might help if I knew what you were trying to do. PC78 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was trying to do :P {{WikiProject Amiga}} shouldn't simply redirect to {{WikiProject Computing}} since it is a sub-project. It would be nice if I could do |category={{{category|nested}}} though. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I get what you're doing, it just seems counterproductive for two banners which are currently unused ({{WikiProject Amiga}} and {{WikiProject Computer networking}}). Those banners will need to be kept in sync with {{WikiProject Computing}}, but since they're unused it would be better to get rid of them and use {{WikiProject Computing}} directly. Likewise for the others, it would make more sense if you were doing this as an intermediate step towards full deprecation. I won't press the issue, though. I'm not sure why you's want to use |category={{{category|nested}}}.

You might also want to take a look at the issues I raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security. PC78 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably an article can belong to more than one task force/subproject? If so you're going to need to pass all of the parameters in {{WikiProject Computing}} through all of these banners. PC78 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Those banners are for Wikipedia:WikiProject Amiga, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer networking, etc which are child projects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. They should have their own templates, but transcluding {{WikiProject Computing}} greatly simplifies things and still gives us the ability to have a combined WP1.0 stats and article alerts.
If an article is only transcluding say {{WikiProject Amiga}}, {{WikiProject Computer networking}}, {{WikiProject Software}}, {{WikiProject Websites}}, etc, then the page is only using that particular project/taskforce and there is no reason to pass the other project/taskforce parameters. If a page falls under multiple projects/taskforces (not too common) it can transclude {{WikiProject Computing}} directly. As for |category=, MSGJ already figured out what I was trying to do and fixed it. [10]
When I converted (and reverted) {{WikiProject Software}} and {{WikiProject Websites}} they lost their project-specific assessment categories. I'm not sure why but I bet it is something really simple that I overlooked.
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security, but I had already redirected {{WikiProject Malware}} to {{WikiProject Computer Security}}. I'm currently working on a copy of {{WikiProject Computing}} as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the subprojects "should have their own templates" is rather contradictory to what you're doing, is it not? PC78 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, however I'm not done yet. My main focus was to see if I could get the parent template working properly and then quickly repopulate the assessment categories. Now since that seems to be working properly again, I plan to redesign the child project banner templates. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the other |QUALITY_SCALE be set to subpage? Also shouldn't there be another |topic6=Interfaith work group? Is the order of topic1, topic2, etc... important? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply to this shortly, I'm just in the middle of something ATM. :) PC78 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Right then. Yes, it should if the task forces are to use the same quality scale as the main project. However, this banner was already on my radar due to the number of unused task force categories, so I don't think that's necessary here. It's really something I should discuss with John Carter though. For your other query, the topic1-5 parameters in {{class mask}} are only used to check for task force categories and give off a warning if they don't exist. It doesn't matter which order they go in, and there are only five of them. They aren't an essential part of the template. Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I can basically implement the same /class thing to a banner such as {{WikiProject Football/class}} (which also used the extended scale) without having to worry about topic1, topic2, ... for the 20something taskforces and so on?

Yep. :) PC78 (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Bug Squasher Award for Excellence
		For your recent timely error report, I award you the Bug Squasher Award for Excellence in troubleshooting efforts. Thank you for catching this error so quickly! Figured this award is better late than never - for your suggestion to use "ArticleHistory" for auto-assessing as GA/FA/FL. Xenobot Mk V now does this =) –xenotalk 17:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! PC78 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, had a quick question for you. This January, I helped you out at the Graphic Lab (see archive here) to come up with a new logo for the Template:WikiProject Films Award. Is it alright if I switch the images? Were you not satisfied? Or should I delete my new version (it's currently orphaned)? Thanks very much. Mononomic (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, that was almost a year ago, you've clearly got a better memory than me! :) I don't really have a good answer for you, other than to say that a redesign of the project's barnstar was (and still is) a pretty low priority. If I ever get around to it then I'll probably do something different, so I don't really have any plans to use the image you created, but on the other hand I don't see any need to delete it either. Thanks for your efforts though. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of this? We even have some IP editors who have user pages. There is nothing wrong with that. Garion96 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We do? Feel free to revert me then, it just seemed a little inappropriate for what I assume is a shared talk page not specific to any one person. No harm intended. PC78 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP already reverted you. Mind you, I think that particular IP is annoying as hell :) but there is nothing wrong there. Some people keep their static IP for ages and decide to have their own user page. Garion96 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What don't you like about me Garion96? :/ 78.32.143.113 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have thought it necessary to point this out, but notability tags are added to articles with the expectation that the notability of the article be referenced. Asserting notability in an edit summary isn't quite enough. Fancy adding something to the article establishing why this film is notable? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any guideline or policy which makes that a requirement of removing notability tags, and yes, I do expect an edit summary comment to be sufficient for an assumption of good faith on your part. I wouldn't say the film is terribly notable, but I have a print source and I'm quite sure I can stump up a few online ones. I'll try and have a crack at it later tonight. PC78 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If I'd thought you were acting in bad faith I'd have reverted and warned you. Instead, I pinged you to see if you could help address the problems therein (which you've done a great job of: thanks). The cleanup tag is basically meant to induce people to do just that; ideally this extra step wouldn't be required. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't required here -- you might have waited more than an hour and a half to see if I was going to do anything about it. Still, I think there was a compliment in there so I'll take it. Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)