Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:09, 16 April 2010

January 2009

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages, as you did in The Dreamers (film). Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that linking a film's page to the Imdb page of the producer constituted an inappropriate link. Also, adding a link to the official site of the production company isn't advertising. Yes, I am affiliated with that company, but even if I wasn't, as a fan of "The Dreamers," I would want to know this info.

Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

External links at film articles need to be directly related to the topic at hand. For example, a link to the producer's IMDb page would be acceptable at the producer's Misplaced Pages article because there is direct relevance. The same logic applies to the companies as well... if they have their own Misplaced Pages articles, then their official sites can be linked there. I don't have a problem with Jeremy Bolt being mentioned in the infobox, but solely mentioning him in the lead section where there are also other producers involved struck me as a little promotional. It may be worth reading Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. My personal rule of thumb is to remain uninvolved with anything on Misplaced Pages that you may have a personal relation to so you can make contributions that are as unbiased as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate on your line: I don't have a problem with Jeremy Bolt being mentioned in the infobox, but solely mentioning him in the lead section where there are also other producers involved struck me as a little promotional.

Jeremy Thomas was the lead producer on "The Dreamers." He has been Bernardo Bertolucci's producer for twenty years, and solely developed and financed the project. Of the producers listed, Peter Watson (executive producer) and Hercules Bellville (associated producer) work for Jeremy Thomas at his company Recorded Pictures. Though it sounds impressive, the term "executive producer" usually refers to putting the financing deals together, and this is true in this case. Co-producer can be awarded for varying involvement -- in this case, Hercules Bellville helped develop the script. "Co-producer" refers to the line producer on the crew (physical day-to-day producer on set). If you worked in the film industry, these credits would be obvious. Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't, but I fixed it. There was a missing </ref> tag at the end of the "Reception" section. As for producers, I understand the prominence of producers compared to executive producers and associated producers. It was just that there was an attempt to mention Bolt's name in an important way, and combined with the addition of company links, it did not seem to be the most objective series of edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Just for the record, it's Jeremy Thomas, not Jeremy Bolt as you keep saying (a completely different kettle of fish). Whoever set up The Dreamers page shouldn't have credited John Bernard in the infobox. Jeremy Thomas solely has "Producer" credit. If he had shared the job with someone, such as John Bernard, he too would be credited as "Producer." Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Blargh, my tongue really got tangled there! :P Sorry, I meant Jeremy Thomas all along. As for The Dreamers, I've reviewed the credits and agree with you that John Bernard should not be under that field. I've removed it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's great -- thanks! Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Franklyn for my explanation. The additions were word-for-word from Variety and Rotten Tomatoes, which were copyright violations. In addition, IMDb's trivia page is not a reliable source. Let's discuss it there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Balibo film restored paragraph

Hi,
You recovered that paragraph but left the vestiges of footnotes in place as , , .

(So that was an incomplete job, basically.)

There have been a bunch of edits to that article. If you can determine what 11/13/14 refer to, possibly but not necessarily the current 11, 13 and 14, then I can do the mechanics of the footnoting.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for Creation. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/HanWay Films. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article and resubmit when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  19:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and HanWay Films was created.

• The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
• Please continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
• If you would to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Misplaced Pages!  fetchcomms☛ 22:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's created but if you have more sources/material to add, keep adding! Great job on this article.  fetchcomms☛ 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: I have nominated HanWay Films for DYK which means it may appear on the Main Page for 6 hours in a few days' time, if it is reviewed and everything checks out. This means your article really is a spectacular start, as DYK is for showcasing interesting facts from new articles.  fetchcomms☛ 22:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth

did you go through and add spacing to ALL of these places? The proper formatting for a reference following a sentence is to have no spaces. I spent about 2 hours last night going through and fixing the spacing after sentences, and you undid all of it. This is not the proper way that this is supposed to be formatted and I noted that both on the talk page and in the edit summaries and it was reinforced on the article talk page here and noted to be covered in WP:REFPUNCT. I have undone the arbitrary spacing you added in, I'm sorry if this undoes any other edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh gosh, sorry -- I thought when you wrote this:

And don't forget to space directly after each reference, don't run the next sentence into the ref. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It was meant to be spaced that way... I know now. I'll redo my actual edits. As you know, I've written 95% of the page since Haim's death -- any advice welcome. --Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HanWay Films

On April 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HanWay Films, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!  fetchcomms☛ 14:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Two The Two Coreys

Hmm. Actually, it's probably okay to have two pages - one that covers the television program and one that covers the two as a team. However, it looks to me like some of that content is technically mixed up. I'd retain the series page and move the content that pertains to the show from the persons page. I'd also lose the duplicate external links - there shouldn't be an offical website page on the persons page, only on the series and clean out what doesn't belong. It's okay to have the persons page, the two are a phenomenon, not as big as, but sort of like Laurel & Hardy, if you follow. If either page were to be excluded, it would be the persons page. There should links in a "See also" section for the individuals' pages and the lead section is actually fairly decent for the intro to the pair of them, but then it just stops. It leaves the reader hanging and should really be fully expanded. I don't see a link on Haim's page to anything regarding the pair of them and the link on Feldman's is sort of buried. I see no good reason to retain Big Wolf on Campus as it wasn't a joint appearance, nor was it even remotely close in time. Or at least that's what I think off the top of my head. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me look at it again. I haven't added much to either and didn't include Big Wolf on Campus, but it is accepted to have played a role in the conception of The Two Coreys show because they were each on it as themselves in a two-ep arc.

Do you not think combining the two pages is a good idea? With separate and clear sections for show and team. The show clearly fed off their rep as the team, and so could naturally flow.

--Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)