User talk:TheMovieBuff

This user may have left Wikipedia. TheMovieBuff has not edited Wikipedia since April 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, TheMovieBuff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just worked on a bunch of the templates you've done. They look great. The only thing that I really had to touch was the categorization. There were 8 or 9 of them that you had put under American film director templates when the person isn't American. :) If you go to Category:Film director templates, you can see some of the subcats of directors. European and Asian have further subcats. The second thing involves sorting, which is one of those things that you just have to kind of learn. When you categorize templates, you need to put the cat and also how you want it listed on the category page. For example, [[Category:American film director templates|Smith, John]]. That way, everyone is under the correct letter. If you leave it as just Category:American film director templates, then it goes under T on the category page, which is what we don't want. For people, it's usually last name, first name. For most other things, you can use {{PAGENAME}}, which sorts per the first letter that comes after Template:. In the above example, it'd put it under J for John instead of S for Smith. If you have any questions or anything, let me know. I've been doing this template categorization stuff pretty much fulltime for about a year and a half. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mick Jackson has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forest Whitaker has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, My Father the Hero (1994 film) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. LizzieHarrison 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Robert De Niro has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Mr. Billion, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Billion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kevin Lima has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Andy Fickman has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Home Alone 4: Taking Back the House. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have already been warned with regard to 3RR above. I have also warned the other party involved. In addition, please be more careful with your edit summaries and keep them to a brief description of your edit. There is no place for comments such as "First you need to calm down and stop acting like a baby" in an edit summary as you did here. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 02:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HI Movie buff! Thanks for your contributions! Sorry for the cold reception. People have a tendency to issue warnings rather than assume good faith... I've noticed you;ve been creating a lot of articles about films and directors. This is good but can you please use stub categories e.g 2000s-comedy-film-stub with a {{ }} around it. Also if you are starting Amercian films please add Category:American films to your article. ALso see the lists, e.g List of American films of 1984. It would be great if you could built up these lists of missing films and add films you start to the lists by year. So e.g Sam the Man you list that on the list of American films of 2000 page. You follow? Don't worry about other people giving you a hard time for now, but we do have certain rules which can often make editing frustrating but once you learn the ropes it should be a breeze.Please try to follow my advice. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to add some, but I am very busy!! If you also copy the cast section too to the articles you start like Sam the Man that's OK.... Are you interested in any other films outside the states? Because we could sure use more editors adding missing films from countries like France, Italy, Germany and Hong Kong. I started all of the world film lists too, the idea is to have the fullest most comprehensive guide to films by year and by country so building the lists like e.g Italian films of 1965 is a start. We do however try to avoid short films and non notable independent films...If you click edit on say List of American films of 2000 you can see how the tables are formatted. You just copy the sections and add the relevant details in between. Try to keep them in alphabetical order though. You might find it useful actually to red link the missing films into the lists first and then work through by director if that is your preference.... At the bottom of the lists are the imdb directories A-Z. The notable films can be copied into the tables and red linked and then started... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK cool. I'm actually not as active as I used to be in films but I did start the WP:Actors a while back which includes directors, cinematographers, producers etc. User:Lugnuts is the one to ask about formatting. If you have any general queries about guidelines to style and film project goals try asking somebody like User:Erik or User:Nehrams2020. I always fonud it best though to get on with my own tasks. The biggest priority in my book for films at the moment is building up the Italian and French film lists by year and getting the articles started. There are numerous sites dedicated to French cinema and Italian cinema... But if you want to try to provide a fuller coverage of American films first whatever you feel like. But as you can imagine there is already much bias towards US films on here and world cinema is often neglected. You'll find the most missing articles from places like Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Japan, Hong Kong etc Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Dr B has said above - always great to see new people helping out in the film department. EVERY edit is a valid contribution. Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask either myself or post on the talk page of the film project. Lugnuts (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Rachel Talalay, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 07:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created, Love Is Better Than Ever, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created, Fearless Fagan, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Wain has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article C.H.O.M.P.S has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Fourth Wish has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ride a Wild Pony has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bandido (2004 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article American Daylight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Final Cut (1995 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nostradamus (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Siam Sunset has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:John Polson has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matthew Bright has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated C.H.O.M.P.S, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.H.O.M.P.S. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated The Fourth Wish, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fourth Wish. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ride a Wild Pony, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ride a Wild Pony. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Bandido (2004 film), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandido (2004 film). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Siam Sunset, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siam Sunset. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated American Daylight, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Daylight. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Starship (film), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship (film). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated The Final Cut (1995 film), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Final Cut (1995 film). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian makes a good point on AN/I -- you should probably review WP:CANVASS at your earliest possible opportunity. Self-reverts are your friends.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at how many posts I had on my talk page today, I didnt even see your post.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that would be a more convincing argument if you hadn't come over to my talkpage to respond to it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...to help avoid having your film articles PRODed and AfDed is to spend a bit more time on each one and flesh them out. You can, for instance, check out their entries on TCM.COM and ALLMOVIE.COM, where there is usually some useful information which can be used. I find the "Notes" section of TCM particularly valuable for information about a film's production and pre-production periods, and ALLMOVIE often has awards and nominations that aren't listed on IMDB or TCM.

Of course, there's no guarantee that having a more complete article will stop it from being deleted, but it will certainly help in arguing for the film's notability, and it will also be less likely to attract the attention of those who object to the creation of film stubs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to add a cast column and a reliable source e.g NY Times. TCM etc, that helps. But I think all of these nominations were in bad faith and didn't even give you a chance to improve them. As far as I can see they are actually mainstream films, some of them pretty bad movies, but wikipedia is not here to judge what is good or bad. Sorry you encountered this but hang in there, by the looks of it most in the community agree with me and think they should be kept and worked on in a spirit of collaboration many unfortunately are lacking in on here.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you simply add a couple of lines about plot, with a couple of external links, that could help. Other than that, I can't give you any constructive suggestions - this is the extent of my film-article-writing, and it's only because I watched the damn thing at some point. Don't get discouraged, though - it's always good to see good, gung-ho new editors. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you could start them like The Fourth Wish or Love Is Better Than Ever are now with cast and a reliable source for a reference this should be OK. ALso be careful on nationality of films. You claimed a lot of them were American but were solidly European co productions or even Australian!! Please don't be discouraged by this, and tlet the inevitable outcome of the being kept as testament to their notabilty and acceptance of your will to expand. We do have certain standards as you can clearly see, if you can try to follow our advice I doubt you'd encounter any trouble. Regards. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at what's been done to improve Starship (film) to get an idea of where your articles should be headed towards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are short articles, but all directed by a notable director. I feel PROD overkill here! Thanks to everyone who's helped expand these stubs. Lugnuts (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Although you should add around the top 10 in the cast rather than the top 4. Also you can link the 2006 as 2006 (2006 in film). As long as you add all of these films to those listed I talked about previously.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Word of advice on uploading posters. Please don't use the format you've currently been using. A] It'll pick up a bot for deletion because you have no licensing at the bottom, B] You have to wikilink the name of the film at the top . Rationale for Fair Use in [[ ]]. Otherwise at a later date the bot will read it and fail to recognise the article it is being used in. So please copy all of the contents of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Love_is_better_than_ever_ver2.jpg&action=edit. The source must also be stated out side of the template so the bot can read it. This will ave you being drilled deletion warnings later, but above all, you must including the licensing tag at the bottom. See File:Nightofthescarecrow.jpg now. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purrfect. Remember to add the titles to pages like American films of 1976 though so people browsing will come across them by year.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Some more minor things. See my changes to this. Otherwise you're doing really well. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to take more care with you director stubs too, Randall Miller is unreferenced. It needs to have a reference otherwise it is classified as a BLP vio, (it must adhere to biography of living people) and claims however trivial must be cited. You should list his films in a filmography section. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MovieBuff. I noticed the AfD on that article too late to offer any input there, but I've done a little work on the article. I see you've gotten the red-carpet welcome treatment from the Film Project's ambassador of goodwill ;-) I also notice you're starting a lot of very short articles on notable subjects. It's frustrating, of course, that the kind of grab-ass games (like PRODs and AfDs) that people play around here have likely helped stifle growth, so that those notable subjects don't have articles already. Anyway, I've found a good way to start decent articles fast is to use a "Skeleton" file. Set up a "Skeleton" article, with all your usual sources, parameters (credits, date of release, etc.), and links to your regular sources-- allmovie, variety, NY Times, whatever-- and just do your searches, then paste the basic info into the form. Take a few minutes after that do some more searching, and to polish the article up, then you should have a perfectly presentable stub, if not start-article within a few minutes. For an example of what I'm talking about, see: User:Dekkappai/Tools/U.S. Sexploitation, then go into edit-mode. This works particularly well when doing articles on one particular genre or film series. Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from me too. I've been involved in a few of the debates Dekkappai mentions above. I want to stress that you shouldn't take it personally - or get discouraged - when an article is nominated for deletion. It's always best to assume good faith, which means that the nomination is to generate debate as to whether the article stays or goes. I've argued strongly for one of the articles Ride a Wild Pony to stay (which it has) and for another C.H.O.M.P.S to be deleted. The interesting thing is that I think both articles have improved significantly by being nominated. Dekkappai has now found a few references for C.H.O.M.P.S and I did the same for Ride a Wild Pony. So nomination isn't a bad thing in itself. Of course, if nominations are made on a frivolous or vindictive basis, then there is cause to complain as they do take up people's time. There are proper ways to address such instances, but I think these particular ones don't fall into this category. Dekkappai's suggestion above, is a good one, and will mean that the article is a lot better developed when it first "goes live". Anyway, in short, I just wanted to encourage you not to give up and stress that, from my perspective in any case, the involvement in the deletion debates was not personal or any reflection on your effort to create new articles. Cheers, Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Porkys has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transporter series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:K-9 series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mexico Trilogy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Hungarian film director templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:European film director templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vicky Jenson has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stephen Norrington has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stuart Baird has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stephen Daldry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Joe Wright has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion on the talk page and at WP:FILM and consensus seems to be to include the television films. There are articles for some of these, so at least those with an article should be included, but then it would be awkward to randomly exclude those television films which do not yet have an article. Note also that the essay you cited on WP:FILM is just that, an essay and not policy or a guideline. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether anyone was aware of this essay, but even this essay only says that "Red links should be avoided", not that Red links are not allowed. In any case you also removed links to existing articles, and it is quite clear that most if not all redlinks in the template have the potential to be developed into an article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the red links have articles, some of them quite detailed and including third-party sources, on the German Wikipedia. So that alone indicates some notability. That no one has created them so far is not a reason, there is no deadline here and removing the redlinks makes it less likely that anyone will ever develop them into article. If you are unhappy with the template try to get a new consensus about the inclusion of television films. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Revengers (film). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Revengers (film). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dudes (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not information aside from basic IMDB information regards cast, etc to make this a relevant article. Fits better in a filmography on director/actors pages, unlinked.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -Cam^T|C 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Boywithxrayeyes.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Frankensteinreborn.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Straightintodarkness.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that you must have some reason for continually removing films directed by James Whale from the template for films directed by James Whale. However, seeing as they are, in fact, films directed by James Whale I can't imagine that it is a very good reason. Please stop removing Whale-directed films from the template. Thank you. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Um gee, how about checking the sources at James Whale? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Take three seconds and search Google. Is the New York Times sufficient to establish Whale's direction of Hello Out There? Is this sufficient to establish he directed the training film? Instead of blindly and stupidly reverting edits based on the thoroughly UNreliable IMDB, maybe in future it wouldn't be too much trouble for you to, you know, look at a single Wikipedia article in which Whale's directorship of these films is clearly established by reliable sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gremlins has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "TheMovieBuff", I notice you've made it a personal mission to remove The Transporter from the template for films directed by Louis Leterrier. I can't see why though, seeing as how this film was directed by Mr Leterrier, and it's not like this is a state secret that isn't documented. As such I would ask you to please stop removing The Transporter from the template. Thank you.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! I was wondering if you could make film director templates for the Category:Argentine film directors people. There are tons of notable directors and their films need sorting/expanding/starting. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are notable but in particular Luis César Amadori and Leopoldo Torre Nilsson could do for starters. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the size of the navbox by grouping the books into there series, which allows easier navigating. I did explain this in the edit summary. Do you disagree with this change? d'oh! _talk 06:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frederik Du Chau has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert me without an edit summary. It is a waste of space to have one film for each decade in the Paul Greengrass template. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Director templates do not need to be consistent by breaking down by decade. If you have an example like Template:Paul Greengrass, there will be mostly-empty lines where the directed works can be better grouped together. I'll be watchlisting where I fix templates to avoid such empty lines. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add mostly-empty lines to director templates. It is possible to be "consistent" to a fault. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FILM#Director templates. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Bob Clark film. It's not well-known that it is, but in ClarkWORLD, a documentary about him, it's made very clear that he was the director of this film. Lithistman (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm watching ClarkWORLD right now. The documentary makes it VERY clear that B & B was filmed shortly before his death, and released after he had died. A documentary about the man is a far more reliable source than IMDB. Please quit reverting the movie out of the template. Lithistman (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the Up series from the template. I don't know what the hell your problem is with the series or with using edit summaries, but even if you did bother to explain yourself I highly doubt there's any justification for removing it. Propaniac (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, after looking at the rest of your Talk page, is it your mission statement to randomly delete movies from director templates? Propaniac (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're films that premiere on TV. Nobody on Earth classifies them as a TV series instead of a film series. Perhaps someone could have informed you of that earlier, if you'd mentioned in an edit summary that you were removing it because of a mistaken belief that it's a TV series. Propaniac (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Slade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frederik Du Chau has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vicky Jenson has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stuart Baird has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eric Darnell has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what sense it makes to have the template, though, when he's only directed DreamWorks films and those already have a navbox. It's redundant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply re-adding Henry VIII (TV serial) to {{Pete Travis}} will not make it a film. It is a two-part serial produced by a television company, and broadcast on television. It has nothing to do with films and did not have a theatrical release anywhere in the world. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you admitted that breaking down by decade can be going too far in some cases. Are you telling me that five films cannot be presented in a single row? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Burr Steers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deep Freeze (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Freeze (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your language is very beautiful and necessary. I will teach English, and Wikipedia help me. I will translate article with dictionary. 188.18.89.183 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Deep Freeze (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that for the 2003 horror film Deep Freeze, director John Carl Buechler created a giant trilobite as the "monster"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the decade breakdown in director navboxes is only for cases where it's otherwise difficult to get a proper overview of the filmography. The breakdown makes the navbox more intrusive, so when it's not absolutely necessary it should be avoided. I also highly encourage you to leave an explanaition when you revert an edit, it is confusing and bad etiquette to not communicate in such situations. Smetanahue (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you need to come up with a better argument than that many film director templates have decade breakdowns. You can NOT claim that all navboxes have such divisions, because it's just not true. The very template Wikipedia template messages has a section with three rows of links, so it's obviously not too much for a film template to have this as well. The only reason for decade breakdown is when there are so many titles that the overview becomes difficult without dividing the navbox somehow, but this is definitely not the case in the vast majority of the templates. That many navboxes of a certain type (again, not at Wikipedia at large) do something wrong is not a reason to continue doing it wrong. I will undo your reversal at Template:Terry Gilliam and I do not expect you to revert it again until you have provided at least one genuine argument here or at my talk page. Smetanahue (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Twoforthemoney.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KaBlam! has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 14:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Underdog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am wondering if you think it would be a good idea to rename director templates to include the word "Direc