User:Figaro/Personal notes

2000 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony

Both the article above, and the 2000 Summer Olympics article, are unreferenced. I looked at the cover images of the DVD and the CD. There is insufficient information visible to provide sufficient information for citation.

The template Template:Cite video requires:

{{cite video
 | people =
 | year =
 | title =
 | medium =
 | location =
 | publisher =
}}

for the DVD and

{{cite album-notes | title = | year = | bandname = | format = | publisher = | location = | publisherid = }} for the CD.

I understand you scanned both the DVD and the CD covers. If you could provide this information then we would have a fairly solid, reliable source for much of the content of both articles (but unless there is a reasonable commentary section on the DVD & artists notes on the CD then we can't really cover the discussion about the performances, beyond describing information readily avaialble in the credits and by watching / listening.Garrie 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Note - I don't really understand why tv-show, dvd, music etc articles don't require a citation - I know they're discussed as "self-referencing" but that is just a convention (it would be trivial for contributors to use the above templates even in articles such as A Kick in the Arts (Goodies episode)) - but the articles about the Olympics, aren't about the CD/DVD but about the event. We are using the CD/DVD to allow for verification.Garrie 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit short with that request there, it is more a statement of fact then a request and I appologise for that. The work you have done so far is a very good contribution to both articles.

I am not sure if the information is on the back cover or if it would be in the credits / booklet, so scanning and uploading the back cover may not be sufficient.

To be honest - I haven't used that particular template and I think the "People" parameter would be an optional one. The Notes at the bottom of Template:Cite video state: people= could be anyone responsible with the film. Add role in parentheses. So I guess that would be Joe Bloggs (Director).

If the DVD had it's own article I would be able to get the information from that article I guess. You seem to be quite good at articles for DVD's / television series / eps.

In a related issue - The Games Of The XXVII Olympiad 2000: Music from the Opening Ceremony is an article about the CD of that name. It has Template:Tl:advert on it - would you be interested in looking at improving that article so it isn't so much like Sony's press release?

As for A Kick in the Arts - I read it and as it was it didn't make sense so I tried to improve it. I tossed up between "been disappearing" and "disapeared" then went with disapeared. But I figured changing it was better than a not on the talk page it was only a copyedit not a factual edit. (hey, at least your tiredness-induced typo involved real words unlike mine!).

Once again, I appologise for being overly direct / blunt / impolite. Garrie 22:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Organizing the Australian film list

Hi Figaro, I see you've done a lot of good to the List of Australian films, so I wanted your opinion about reorganizing the list in a chronological/alphabetical order. The new organizing effort has already been applied to List of Canadian films: 2000s and although it's still a bit empty in the early years, it's getting quite nice and useful in the later years. I would appreciate your opinion, as well as any suggestions for improvements. Hoverfish Talk 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with having both chrono and alpha lists for Australian films, but I have first to get some consensus on it, as it will apply to more countries. The slippery part with lists that merely act as an index, is that they get nominated for deletion in favor of category. I don't think anyone would dare nominate the Australian film list, but due to several recent AfDs on film lists, I think it's best to give some extra info. Ok, in this case we have (Year), (Animation /TV), co-productions and some aka titles. This certainly gives us an argument. I would go one step further and add major awards. If they are AFI's, Oscars, Palme d'Or's, etc, by name and if they are lesser ones and/or nominations by number (2 awards & 3 nominations). Also world-wide famous directors (Until the End of the World, dir. Wim Wenders). Also I moved a couple of films to their English title. We should always give the title as it is given in the article. - And by the way, the throat-candies I'm guiltily savoring contain eucalyptus from Australia. I've read somewhere that it's a problem for Koalas... Hoverfish Talk 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your effort in alphabetizing. I agree. But the long term solution should include persuading Blofeld to accept these lists to stay by alphabetical order. I know Ausiepete wouldn't have a problem and actually would like it better so. But Blofeld has ulterior plans to convert all the lists to chronological order, which I don't like because dates are not always given right, plus there are many more users who care to find alphabetical lists. There are now the "sortable" tables, but the problem is that if I apply this class, then all columns become sortable and that's a mess again. If I could get only the two first columns sortable, we could have it open to users how they want to sort it when they view it. But I have to ask some techies for it. I would ask you to post your opinion about the sorting in WP Films, so we can gather a useful consensus. The way it is, we always discuss in user talk pages and like this any decision/implementation remains weak. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I was just coming to mention about these points noticing the Australian film lists have been alphabetised. I was aware that the lists were in the incorrect alphabetical order but I was under the impression that it was chronological order instead of alphabetical so I didn't make much of a focus to make it completely alphabetical. I don't mind either way but I think it's more practical to have it alphabetical (even though it is alphabetical in the categories). I see no real purpose to have them listed by release date, especially if the dates are unknown or not entirely accurate, but even then it just seems like a big pile of films in no particular order. If someone wants to see films by release date, maybe there could be some articles "List of films released on Mar 15" but that seems ludicrous! I don't know, I much prefer alphabetical listing with release dates being very much a secondary listing. Otherwise the main solution would to be to sort them alphabetically and then have table sorting switched on to sort chronologically if you really want to. I'd be interested to hear a valid argument or reason to have it listed chronologically? Peter 10:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said to Pete, there is an example in List of Thai films where sortable tables are used. When the page is first visited (or reloaded), the sorting appears as we have edited it. For this method to be succesful, dates must all be given in the same format. Which means Month-Day if the table is for one year, or Year-Month-Day if it's for decade. If the day is missing, it still sorts correctly by month, before the full dated entries. If no month is given, then it sorts before the dated entries. The most important effect is, we will not have to have dublicate lists to satisfy those of the chronological taste. We must also maintain them regularly, as newcomers may add films with dates in the wrong format. I am available to help make them sortable, and to keep them on watch permanently. Hoverfish Talk 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and since they were put in alphabetical order, we'd better also change the lead sections accordingly. Hoverfish Talk 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be careful to go duplicating lists, Just the Australian films for example is one of plenty of other country lists. To duplicate them for the sake of chronological/alphabetical isn't worth it as lists wont be updated together. auto sorting columns is much better. I think lists will be in alphabetical order (with the, a, an, le etc being disregarded in sorting). Chronological is not necessary except by year. Sorting columns would deal with this. I think also a more important thing would be to fill out the tables with actual data instead of having heaps of empty lists and pages. Peter 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I started fighting today with the List of French films. Empty lists start getting speedy deleted, so all the other refinements can wait, but they will come soon. The general template of lists of films by country should have stayed hidden till we are more ready with the lists. Right now it's like a ghost town and a high profile target. But even if we get deletions, we can always work on the lists in some sandbox and get them back in mainspace when they are respectably full. Hoverfish Talk 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back, after having compiled a huge French list. I tried the format of the BAFTA Award for Best Film featured list and I am getting positive feedback. Meanwhile I've been thinking about your point of having a parallel full alphabetical list (surely with content more than just a category-like listing). The sortable option has backfired, as it can gets messy with 5-6 sortable columns. I will soon have a suggested solution in my user-space. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List and navigation management has started and it would be best to start moving relevant threads of discussions there. And by the way, I just noticed you're #403 in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits! I know it's not supposed to be an objective reflection of contribution, but still! Hoverfish Talk 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Once more to bug you about the Aussie list. I am condencing the lists into more manageable segments (5 intead of 36!) in my Notebook. I suggest 1890s-1930s, 1940s-1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Can you run down the length of some of the segmnents (they're all up to 1990s in the page) and tell me if you find their length decent. At least if we have only 5 or 6 we can be able to work with them. But I need some feedback on the choice of length. I use as a "segment unit" the length of the 1980s alone. Hoverfish Talk 08:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

QPAC page

Hi Figaro, noticed you edit the QPAC page a bit, if you ever need any inside information i work at QPAC and i can answer any questions or even provide more photos. just email me or leave a message here. (im josh at qpac) cheers - JOSH - talk - 7 march 2007

Mahogany Glider

It should work now. There was nothing on the Commons under this name. You have to dowload the file off the French wiki and then re-upload it on Commons. In any case, it works now, but I hope I tagged it with the correct license... Grandmasterka 09:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodies from the top

YouTube user catastrophegoodies is sequentially posting episodes of The Goodies in 3- or 4-part sets, a great boon to those of us in regions where the shows have rarely been broadcast and never offered on tape or disc. I had all but given up on ever seeing these episodes. A few of the trio's Bananaman cartoons are also viewable on YouTube. Any day now a clip of Bill's Saturday Banana might even surface. Asat 09:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven't learned to wrap, yet!

Hi Figaro, I've managed to upload a recent picture of David Hobson (singer) to his entry page but wrapping the text around it is beyond me. Can you help out again, or at least tell me how to go about it. Thanks.

Later . . .

Never mind, I've deleted - the more I read the Use of Images pages, the more I become confused! The article really needs a picture, so perhaps someone else can provide something acceptable, because it won't be me - my private photos aren't for publication.

Gianetta - 6 April 2007

Wikiproject Monty Python

hey there, I've noticed you're a Python fan and have been working on some Python-related material here on Wiki. I thought I'd let you know that I have proposed a Wikiproject dedicated to Monty Python and would like you to show your interest. You can do that by adding your name under the interested user page on the proposal page. Fell free to leave comments there as well. Also I ask you to let any other users you know have been working on Python-related material about the proposal as well. I look forward to starting this project as soon as some interest shows itself. Ganfon 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged Wikipedia:WikiProject Monty Python, now with your interest and three others, it may well be rehabilitated! Chris 02:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi Figaro! I would like to nominate you for adminship, let me know if it's ok for you ;-) Happy editing, Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)