User talk:Bovineboy2008/Archives/2010/August

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The

what is a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 012bond (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, its an article or something that confirms data. It can be an article, a website, a database or otherwise. See

this one about which sources Wikipedia actually uses. BOVINEBOY2008

01:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

About those "year in film" links; know of any nifty ways to search for articles with them? I noticed you've been cleaning up more than a few that I've missed in my own watchlist lately and I'm wondering if you're using something to search them out or just finding them by coincidence. My usual google search tricks that I use when I run into some consistent bit of aggravating text don't really work for this. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have just been running into them. But you can look at Special:WhatLinksHere/2010 in film for example, although that has everything that links. BOVINEBOY2008 11:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Doh. I could probably do the same with google now that I think of it. That way I could exclude the links that are relevant. Thanks. Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Best thing ever. Thanks. Should

I was going to bring it up after the writing parameters are all figured out. BOVINEBOY2008 11:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you use a template that only lists the premiere and another date? ChaosMaster_Chat 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The template is a way to keep consistency for formatting of the dates, use of the "start date" template and adding appropriate categories in a timely fashion. I don't understand your opposition to the () style. BOVINEBOY2008 02:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

First, my opposition doesn't come solely for the dates: when you edited, you also edited the other text in the infobox that uses that same text. Do you oppose that altogether? Also, I added this issue to the GA review on New Moon's movie article, just to get an oppinion of a more experianced user. ChaosMaster_Chat 02:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bovineboy is an experienced user, what are you talking about... Mike Allen 02:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, not like that. I mean more experianced in that "area" of going against

MOS:BOLD and just simply formatting. Maybe a third opinion could work well also; one not subject to taking sides (especially since its a GA review). I don't mean to call you "inexperianced", thats not what I am doing or am here to do. Sorry about that. ChaosMaster_Chat

02:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Anyway, you do know that using the Film date will save a lot of time in the future, right? It does the same thing as Start date, but it also includes the "Upcoming film" category. Then when the film is released it automatically changes to the "XXXX films" cat. Bovinboy, could I propose you also include the "Films to be released in November XXXX" category? Mike Allen 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't I just change the "start date" in the formating to "film date". It would still work the same way, right? ChaosMaster_Chat 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The coding takes into account the first date in the template as the year of release. If you have two templates, then there would be two first releases. You still haven't given a reason why the () are wrong. I agree that we should have a third opinion. I'll be bringing it up soon at the project or the infobox talk page as soon as the writing parameters are finalized. I don't like splitting the focus of discussions. Although, I'm going overseas, so I don't know how soon I'll have internet. BOVINEBOY2008 13:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel the () aren't necessarily "wrong", but used in a place where we could use something "better". The reason I wanted to avoid something like the current format at the Inception page was because of the confusion that arrises if you have the date, followed by the country in () and another date below, rather than above. It can be confusing because I can interpret the date for the premiere to be the 16th, rather than the first. Which is why it was then suggested to use a list format (which I honestly thought you came up with) and text similar to the infobox text already (which included bold), moving the country and premiere above the release dates to avoid any confusion. Furthermore, it was decided to use the text format to list directors and producers for a movie with this format to avoid clutterly repetitous () after every film in a series that they directed (Harry Potter film series). I am 99.9% sure there was a discussion about this, however, I don't recall where it was, but would place my bets on a Harry Potter film article. ChaosMaster_Chat 14:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's appropriate to replace {{Start date}} with {{Film date}}? The code looks different between the two, and the start date template seemed to me to be a higher-up feature. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that BivineBoy is the only editor that has edited the template (which isn't bad, but compared to the other, which has/had multiple editors) ChaosMaster_Chat 14:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Erik, {{Film date}} uses the Start date template, so any benefit {{Start date}} has, {{Film date}} will also have. Choas, the only reason that I have been the only one to edit the template is because I created it and it hasn't been in existence for more than maybe three weeks. Of course anyone could edit it. And perhaps once a formatting can be agreed upon by the whole community, they can automatically be changed by that template. You know my preference and I know yours. I do appreciate the explanation you gave and I don't recall a discussion about the presentation, but I think we can agree that this is more a discussion about formatting and not truly content. I think it would be best to come up with a consensus project-wide to finalize this discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind it that much, but it seems like "Start date" was supposed to encompass all sorts of topics. I'm just wondering if we're being too granular here. I can see that the benefit is to help with categorization, but I don't know if that means it's worth up-ending the start date template. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's good that this template uses {{Start date}}; but it should only do so on the first of the dates. ICBW, but I also understand that it's against policy for templates to add articles to categories in the way this template does. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that sucks. Mike Allen 01:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean we can use the other one now? ChaosMaster_Chat 02:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Chaos, in reply to your other comment. Film articles aren't the only ones that use the "start date" template, so changing everything over to film date would not fly for TV articles and other media. Mike Allen 03:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I'm not sure what you mean by its against policy. Is it against policy for template to add categories, or is it to add them on a time basis? Because our Template:Infobox film adds a category for the language inputed, and I haven't seen anyone argue that. So I'm just confused, I guess. I did remove the other start dates, BTW, so only the first will be using the actual template while the other dates will just be displayed. BOVINEBOY2008 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on creating a fine template, I hope to see this being used more widely in {{

I can certainly do that! I have to give some of the credit to you, however. Without your template, I would have never thought of the prospect. BOVINEBOY2008 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't give me too much credit. :) I basically just cut & paste the code from {{

Film}}, it was someone else who actually wrote it. PC78 (talk

) 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, a few more comments/crits for you. :) So far as I can tell, {{film date|2010}} doesn't add any categories. Also, it would be helpful if the template would accept text values such as "August" for the month. PC78 (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason {{film date|2010}} doesn't add categories is because it can't tell if it is released (which would take Category:2010 films) or if it isn't yet (which would take Category:Upcoming films). I could develop another category that can keep track of them, but I know some old films only have a year of release. I just am not sure what to do there. And I can look into the month thing. BOVINEBOY2008 15:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would treat them as "upcoming films". If a film has already been released this year it should be possible to find a more specific release date than just the year. Possibly needs more input, though. PC78 (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Bovineboy2008/2009 in theatre, User:Bovineboy2008/2008 in theatre. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! BOVINEBOY2008 18:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed you helping to maintain this article. I've made some suggestions for streamlining the charts at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Superfluous_information and would welcome some feedback before I actually go ahead with anything, since I don't want to remove content other editors consider important. I've split my recommendations up so editors accept/reject on a point-by-point basis. Betty Logan (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

With such little evidence you have displayed, your accusation of me being a sockpuppet is again, a random blame game. Tdi7457 lives in North America, as i live in Europe. Milwaukee Patriot —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

Majorclanger's back. Block Majorclanger indefinitely. * Majorclanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism - obvious revert edits. Get Rid of Majorclanger. He's driving me nuts. Final Life II (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, etc. (Final Life, that is.) —fetch·comms 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you keep changing my revisions regarding the National Touring company of Mary Poppins, but what I am writing is correct. Thanks! Satmatinee (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2010 Satmatinee (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC) satmatinee

Who are you to go about deciding what a reliable source is regarding game reviews. There are other sources beyond IGN, Gamespot, etc.. As for the rules of blogs, Destructoid IS a blog, deal with it. The notion that some blogs are allowed and others are not is absurd. Threatening to "ban" (I put quotations because you have no actual power) me for posting a source for a review (which is an opinion so academic authority is unimportant) while you suppress information is equally absurd. Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.128.165 (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Actually, you are WAY past that point. Take it to the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I took it off my watchlist. Its not worth arguing about especially since this ip seems certainly stubborn. I won't be near the page for a long while. BOVINEBOY2008 19:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the page. Yes, the IP certainly is stubborn, and has been reverted more often than that you reverted the editor. However, I quickly counted 5 reverts of you today. I hope that next time you will earlier ask for independent intervention, and maybe leave the article at the wrong version while it is sorted out. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving pages wrong is possibly the hardest thing for me to do, although that doesn't validate that. This is something that I need to work at. BOVINEBOY2008 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, it just feels wrong. I also had to learn that. Try next time to issue a 3RR warning in time, and/or consider asking for help. Just that you know, I had my finger on the block trigger ... you both had a narrow escape today (and this is still so nice and clean after 2 years ...). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thank you for the graciousness. BOVINEBOY2008 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just posting this as an outside observer. A blog both is and is not acceptable as a verifiable reliable source. To give an example, a personal blog written by an individual would not count as a reliable source, at least by Wikipedia standards. We all know this and acknowledge this freely. However, a media outlet reporting in the format of a blog (see: Gawker Media sites such as Kotaku, or, being that it was mentioned, Destructoid) would be perfectly acceptable. I suppose it comes down to a line that must be analyzed on a case by case basis. Just thought I'd make mention of that for future reference. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 14:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I become autoconfirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiGamer64 (talk • contribs)

• LuigiGamer64 (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you need to be either a review or an administrator, see WP:Pending changes. BOVINEBOY2008 04:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Bovineboy2008. You just undid my revision to the film Inception regarding it being a Anglo-American production. You stated in the comments section of your edit "please read the talk page regarding this)" I can't find anything regarding this on either the current or archived talk page. To what are you referring? There are quite a few reputable sources supporting my edit including the IMDB. Sincerely Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm... that is really odd since I distinctly remember a discussion occurring. Maybe it is elsewhere. Anyways, can I see your sources that call it a British film? Remember that imdb is not a reliable source. BOVINEBOY2008 16:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm already autoconfirmed, but now I need to become an administrator. How do I become one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiGamer64 (talk • contribs)

• LuigiGamer64 (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It takes a lot to become an Admin. I'm not entirely sure on this one as I am not an Admin. If you ask someone who is, they could tell you better. BOVINEBOY2008 05:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerning these edits to the disambiguation page

Okay, thanks. Just confirming, red links on a dab page can have a supporting blue link in the same line, but none for blue links. BOVINEBOY2008 19:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, each entry should have exactly one blue link; it may also have a red link for the ambiguous use, but only if the red link also appears in the blue-linked article in the description. As always, because this is Wikipedia, you may encounter exceptions. Happy editing!--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. BOVINEBOY2008 20:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

thx for fixing it. I couldn't even figure out how to fix it when I added Satoshi Kon to the recently deceased section. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem! The formatting of tables is arguably the most confusing thing an editor encounters regularly. BOVINEBOY2008 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Any reason you keep removing the correct genre/decade category from upcoming films, for example Category:2010s drama films from films being released latter this year (IE 2010) or in 2011? Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The films have yet to be released in that decade, so I don't believe they belong in that decade. Is their any reason that you continue re-add them? BOVINEBOY2008 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How is anything certain then? So you're saying a film with a release date of 26th August can't go into Category:2010s genre films until tomorrow? Common sense says it should. Lugnuts (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a film coming out tomorrow would make sense, yes. But a film article that claims the film is to be released in 2010, with no solid date attached? It is my opinion that date-sensitive categories should only be added when that film or whatever is released as to avoid in mis-categorization. Does this make sense? BOVINEBOY2008 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as the article would be sourced with an approx release date and info on production, detailing the genre, etc. IE it would have enough

WP:RS to state it is coming out in this decade and is of a specific genre. Lugnuts (talk

) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't know the film is coming out that decade, or else my

WT:FILM. BOVINEBOY2008

19:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The latter. So a film coming out tomorrow would be OK. Where do you draw the line? Next week? Next month? 2 months? 6? Lugnuts (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I put the line at, well, today, and I don't think you have a line. I'm willing to compromise. Let's see where the rest of the community stands at this. BOVINEBOY2008 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, now that

Yes I sure can. BOVINEBOY2008 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are now zero links to the disambig. Thanks much for your help! Cheers, --JaGa^talk 09:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem! (pun intended). BOVINEBOY2008 14:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You appear to have reverted my edit to the Sparrow page. I understand that my edit was, in turn, an undoing of your previous edit, but, despite a few positives, your edit seems to have contributed unnecessarily to the article. For example you have deleted that the film is a Polish-British production, as well as removing fundamental categories, such as "2010 films" at the base of the page. I will undo your edit while keeping parts of your contributution including the "Sparrow" dismbiguation for categories.

Thanks Wikitrueforever (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, you are very wrong. Upcoming films are supposed to be attached to the that category until the film is released, where it can be assigned the proper year category. Also, there is a suggestion that if the production country is complicated, which I interpret to be more than a single country, then it can be left out of the infobox. Also, please review

WP:FILMRELEASE, before you revert again. BOVINEBOY2008

20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. But do you understand the infobox looks messy...? Furthermore your points about categorisation are correct. I forgot about this - so I apologise... I'm currently looking at more of your edits. Will talk again soon... Thanks Wikitrueforever (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask, which part of the infobox do you think looks messy? BOVINEBOY2008 20:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Dates of release. Those little inanimate boxes appear after each... Also, I may like to contest your removal of the Facebook external link. The rules suggest social networking sites are generally to be avoided except for special cases. And I believe this is a special case seeing as the Facebook site is clearly run by the article subject and is one of the major sources/ or "official" sources for this article.... Cheers! Wikitrueforever (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't investigate the facebook link that closely. I trust that you know more about this subject, and you can add that back in if you believe it belongs there. And what are the "inanimate boxes" you are talking about? I see parenthesis, but those are an acceptable, and some would argue preferable, way of presenting that information. BOVINEBOY2008 20:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps it's my computer but I see little boxes after each date....? The sort of boxes that appear when a computer hasn't understood the symbol... Plus, forgive me, but I'm not sure that there was anything wrong with the original release date info. Thought it looked quite clear in separating by country.... Wikitrueforever (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why its doing that...um...and about the dates. This is what I believe to be what

WP:FILMRELEASE prescribes. It says to include the very first release (ie film festival, preview, whatnot), and then the countries of production (UK and Poland here). Maybe I misunderstood what was being written before, but I believe this is correct. BOVINEBOY2008

21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, regarding release dates I suppose that's generally correct, but it will become clearer as release date looms I suppose. I will look into the appearance of the infobox - might merely be a spelling error or something. Oh, and I will reinstate the facebook page. Wikitrueforever (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Disburbed: Asylum (Release Date) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)