Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:53, 6 September 2009

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcut WT:FILM

Template:WP Film Sidebar

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Film and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Italics in article titles

{{italic title}} was created so titles of articles about films, plays, books, TV shows, etc could be italicized but I don't see it being used. Is there a reason for that? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because there's no consensus that special formatting is necessary or desired. See Template talk:Italic title. Powers 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with such italics, though I was wondering why WikiProject Films was not notified. I recall the proposal being mentioned here some time ago, but I don't remember any links to widespread discussion. Do we need to form a community consensus for it? The italics can't apply universally, though... short films use quotation marks, not italics. Formats like these we'll need to discuss. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no community consensus for doing that sort of thing, and I'd hope there never is. There is a huge RfC about it been going on for weeks now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the rationale against it? If we had this feature around since the beginning of Misplaced Pages, it doesn't seem like it would be a big deal. After all, we italicize the film titles throughout the bodies of their articles, so why not the header, too? Is it a problem with its universal application? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally would be against titling the headers as that's the name of the article and not the name of the subject if that makes sense. I also find it visually distracting. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but film titles are frequently (though not always) italicized in titles of publications and in their tables of content and their chapter titles and their indexes. I think it's only visually distracting because we're not used to it... if it was around since the beginning of Misplaced Pages, it'd be inconsequential to us. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Short summary: aesthetic (people find it ugly), incorrect use of italics (article titles are the titles of articles, no tthe title of the work itself so should not be in italics), not consistent with conventions in most print encyclopedias, poor execution of an idea (if it is how it should be, and many feel this should be addressed at the software level and behind the scenes than with a template "hack"). See Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used.3F for the full discussion. As of now, consensus appears to be clearly against its use, though some do support its continued use only for "Species/genera" articles where it came about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An excellent summary, Collectonian. Powers 11:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Budget and revenue for Donnie Darko

Greetings film buffs,

An IP has pointed out that our article on Donnie Darko gives two different figures for both budget and revenue (). Different websites give different figures and I don't know what's a reliable source for this kind of information, so I thought I'd seek help here.

Adrian J. Hunter 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The 4.5 million is sourced to a fansite. That's not a reliable source, so it should be removed. Box Office Mojo lists the $6 million amount. They also only list a worldwide total of $1,270,522. I don't know where the 4 million gross is coming from. It appears that the infobox is reflecting BOM, while the other is reflecting that fansite.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I realised the existing source was inadequate, I just didn't know what a reliable source would be. I've just found Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Films/Resources which supports your implication that BOM is considered reliable, so I'll update Donnie Darko accordingly. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Going by these edits by an IP, $4.5 million is quoted by the director on the Director's Cut DVD commentary. The-numbers.com also supports the $4.5 million figure. Any thoughts on how to proceed here? Should we take the director's word for it? Perhaps the article should simply state the film was made on a low budget, with a footnote stating that different sources give different figures. It would be good to get this right, since Donnie Darko seems well-known as an excellent film made with a low budget. Adrian J. Hunter 13:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It just means that more reliable sources exist. I typically take a director's/producer's word over a website, because it's "from the horse's mouth". If the DVD commentary says that, then cite the DVD commentary using Template:Cite video. BOM, for me, is a reliable source but also a last resort if you cannot find a source that quotes someone specific directly. Go with the 4.5 mill budget, but use the cite video template to cite the DVD commentary (though, if you have the commentary, I would suggest verifying it for yourself and not taking the word of the IP). Or, just use The-Numbers. If you look at the list of resources you provided, they are considered reliably just like BOM. Plus, it seems that The-Numbers has the international gross as well, which is where that 4 million in worldwide gross came from apparently. If I don't have personal responses to verify my numbers, and I'm down to picking between either BOM or The-Numbers, then I usually go with whoever has more detail. Here, The-Numbers has the international box office, while BOM didn't have it. So, to be on the safe side, I would cite the commentary for the budget, but "The-Numbers.com" for the worldwide gross.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Donnie Darko Book also states a budget of $4.5 million. ...So that's three for $4.5 million and one for $6 million. - kollision (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the prompt and sensible responses. I don't have the DVD, though I have no reason to doubt the IP, especially given the other two sources. I'll follow Bignole's suggestions. Adrian J. Hunter 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

List of similarities/differences between a remake and the original film

In the article about the film Zinda which is a remake of Oldboy, there is a section discussing the similarities and differences between the two films. Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) has been reverting everyone who removes this section. According to WP:MOSFILM (4.4.5) such sections should not be created and particular differences/similarities should be mentioned only in context: "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." - wrong? Shahid • 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your removal is correct. It is unsourced OR and inappropriate content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the removal. It's indiscriminate to list such differences, and it enters the realm of synthesis if there is an argument to tie such differences to the article's mentioned concerns of plagiarism. We editors have no idea what scenes are suspected to be similar or not. If anything, there should be examples from secondary sources backing the accusations and not just our own take on it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Future film

Template:Future film 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. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting to withdraw. There was a follow-up discussion to the consensus to deprecate (which I completely missed), so this template will be addressed later on when discussion on widespread action is taken. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, this did bring to my attention the creation of {{Future film section}} which is contrary to what we agreed on for {{Future film}}. It was only being used in two places so I've removed it and redirected. PC78 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On this day...

Since the people who prepare the main page of Misplaced Pages didn't think it was important enough to mention, I would like to note that on this day in 1939 The Wizard of Oz was released! 63.3.15.129 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's not too late to include it, though I don't know which page to discuss this. Is anyone familiar with doing this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suspect it wasn't included because it isn't listed at August 25, though per the article it would need to be clarified that August 25th was the national release date. It began a limited release on August 12. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

According to The Wizard of Oz: The Official 50th Anniversary Pictorial History, the film opened on August 12 at the Strand Theatre in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. The five-day engagement was advertised locally as the "World Premier Showing." The Hollywood premiere was on August 15. On August 17, it opened in Spirit Lake, Iowa (!) and New York City. It went into national release on August 25. MovieMadness (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has to be said. "I can while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain. And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain." There. I feel better. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Film series by number of entries

I have just nominated these categories at WP:CFD, since I think they may be examples of over-categorisation: the discussion is here. I wondered who best to notify, and thought this was probably the best place. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Scream 2

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for this sort of help but hopefully there is a quick fix here. A user with a long history of vandalism has recently made a minor change to Scream 2 which does look plausible but then I have never seen the film, given the editor's background could somebody have a quick look and ensure his edit is correct? RaseaC (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to address it, though I have not seen the film in a long time. The removal seems to go against the plot summary. Anyone else able to verify the edits made about the characters? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look on the internet and it does seem to be BS and this vandal is particularly persistent (his first edit was about two years ago and he's spent more than half that time blocked) RaseaC (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Table adoption for Academy Award pages

Hello, a table has been created to display Academy Awards' winners and nominees more optimally, and feedback is requested here about adopting the table across all pages to establish consistency. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidates for September 2009 elections

Erik (talk | contribs) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Super High Me

Super High Me is the current collaboration for WikiProject Cannabis, a wikiproject that focuses on the relationship between cannabis and society. Not sure if WikiProject Films has a collaboration as well, but I thought I would point out the possibility for two wikiprojects to work together to impove the article as much as possible. Any help would be appreciated, especially since the article should meet WP Films' policies and procedures. Feel free to contribute in any way possible! Might be a nice break from working on more serious film articles. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Amg movie

Template:Amg movie 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. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the responses so far, the template will not be deleted. At the template talk page, I started discussion for deprecation, outlining the purpose of external links and using a case study to judge AllMovie's supplementary benefits. Thoughts are welcome there. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Popularity

I've submitted the project for Popular pages project, we can find what articles are being visited the most, and perhaps tackle them on that ground. Sound good everyone? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, though I thought I saw somewhere off-Misplaced Pages an article listing the most popular Misplaced Pages articles for 2008-2009. I remember seeing The Dark Knight (film) and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and other highly popular mainstream films on the list. However, I'm more of the opinion that we should look at our core articles and also support active contributors in their endeavors, such as in the five existing PRs: The Last Song, My Own Private Idaho, Big Trouble in Little China, Blue Velvet, and An Inconvenient Truth. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this may be a useful tool. In addition to a main list for the project, it may be an idea to set it up for each individual task force as well as the core articles. PC78 (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be as worried about the popular pages, really. Why? Because they're popular - ergo, they get a lot of eyes and subsequently a larger editorial base than the average article. Recent popular films tend to already have excellent coverage, consequently. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In theory perhaps, but I doubt that it's always the case. The Military History list highlights a number of Start-Class articles, for example. PC78 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also think there's a strong correlation between the number of views and article quality in general, but of course there will be a lot of exceptions. Anyway, while the usefulness of the tool may be debated, it is, at the very least, interesting. decltype (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain that the correlation holds as well in Military history for a couple of reasons. One, it's much easier to write an article on a subject of relatively small scope such as a film, versus a larger topic such as a war. Two, MilHist readership tends away from recentism - only two of the top 25 items are from the last 10 years. This all being said, I don't have a problem with having a bot generate the lists. I only bring this all up because I don't feel that it requires its own task force on our part, and it seems that such a group would only serve to diffuse energy away from the Core list, as well as have a constantly shifting focus remaining almost solely on the latest blockbusters - one area I see no lack of effort in building already. That's my point. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, I hear what you're saying, and recentism will certainly play its part. I don't think anyone suggested having a task force to deal with these articles; rather, I suggested above that it might be useful to have seperate lists generated for each of our existing task forces, because I feel they may be more useful at that level (certainly if we had one for the core articles). There's alredy a list for the military task force (interesting, a few of the top ranked articles appear to be TV series rather than films). PC78 (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will detract from the core list too much, as there actually isn't that much focus on core articles to begin with. We've seen some improvements to a portion of the articles in the list, but if we want to see further progress then more attention needs to be given to it or a drive organized. I predict that more people will work on this hit count list as editors are more likely to know/have seen these films or be more interested in them than in the core list. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Curly Top

Does anyone agree with me that the sections entitled "Cult of cuteness" and "Context" both sound like a thesis written for a film course and don't belong in this article? It also included a section that basically was nothing more than a Shirley Temple bio, so I removed it. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They definitely don't belong in this article for two reasons:

1) the topics covered are not directly related to the film

2) the topics are a violation of WP:SYNTH and contain a large degree of original research in trying to create a perceived connection to the film

I would suggest that the user who added this material remove it from the film article and keep it on their own user sub-page in order to find a more appropriate venue, such as a social science article or similar. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove the two sections. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarantino has spoken...

...and has listed 20 films that he's liked since 1992. Not much earth-shattering about that expect that User:Bardego is now copy and pasting a boilerplate paragraph about Tarantino's liking into the reception section of all 20 films mentioned. It runs along the lines of "In a 2009 interview with Sky Movies, American director and Academy Award-winning screenwriter Quentin Tarantino regarded insert film here as one of the top twenty movies released since he became a filmmaker.". Not only is "movies" the wrong word, but the source is from youtube and the user is peacocking Tarantino with "Academy Award-winning". I have reverted all of the additions but I would like someone else to take a look (I may be wrong but as much as I like Tarantino I don't think his opinion is that important, plus Anything Else is one of the worst Woody Allen films since 1992). Darrenhusted (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Anything Else is one of the worst Woody Allen films ever. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bardego

This is the user who has posted those claims. We discussed this on your talk page and now I understand what the problem was. I will go and delete whatever you missed. One more question, though: what is wrong with 'peacocking Tarantino with "Academy Award-winning'"?

P.S. I agree with you about Anything Else. Bardego (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Academy Award-winning" reference is okay but not in the lede paragraphs. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Dive Bomber (film)

Just as an exercise in preliminary research and editing, I have tackled an old article relating to a classic 1941 film. Here is the original version before editing: then and now. If anyone would like to review it, as it has gone beyond the stub form that it was in, I would appreciate you taking a look. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

A few thoughts:

• I previously have gone on record as being opposed to the use of tables for cast lists.
• I question the use of images not actually from the film. I understand they depict aircraft seen in the film, but should they be included simply because they're free images? Does the reader get a better understanding of the film Dive Bomber by knowing what Vought SB2U Vindicators and Northrop BT-1 dive bombers look like? I feel they're more decorative than anything else here.
• I thought quoting taglines was a thing of the past, and referencing cast lists was unnecessary. Am I mistaken?
• The Production section is excellent. I'm one of those people who like to read a lot of background about a film. Good work! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of tables for cast lists, as far as I can determine is not recommended for major, or significant films but can be applied to a lesser example such as this film. It is also a graphic device used to move graphic images about such as the photographs used here. The first image is actually a screen shot which was the first aerial sequence of the film. The second one was from another Wiki article and will be replaced. The fact that the production was so dominated by the US Navy was one of the reasons for its inclusion. One wacky incident came about when the formations of aircraft flew over the film set and Michael Curtiz stood up and waved them off when he realized that the camera crews were not in position. The pilots who were setting out on a daily exercise, simply ignored the gesticulating and screaming Curtiz below. The film crews were mightily amused by Curtiz's declarations of "No, no. Go back!" as if the flight crews could actually hear him. The incident was symptomatic of the many outbursts and exchanges on the set when the autocratic Curtiz helmed a film. I will make sure that the captions actually reflect why the images that will ultimately be used, should appear in the article. I agree that "purty pictures" is not constructive. The cast list and its source was included because there is some dispute over character names and I wanted to standardize on one source rather than having individual references for every entry that was misidentified in other sources. As to the tagline, didn't know about whether to use it or not as I checked back through some other articles to see that there was no consistency in whether to use them or not. It certainly is a reflection of the promotion or reception of the film and can be tucked in there. Thank you for your comments, but with some alacrity, I would like to move this section as a copy to the article talk page where it may engender further discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Outside opinions sought for The Hurt Locker; new layout proposal

What follows is a basic description of what has transpired over the last month or so with the article for The Hurt Locker. For more (a lot) of details, please refer to the article's discussion page and edit history.

User:Inurhead has made several contributions to the article. Some were helpful, a lot were against consensus agreed upon by a handful of other frequent contributors to the article (myself included). Inurhead resorted to what most other parties considered as being uncivil, and accusing us all of being meat/sock puppets who were intent on deliberately constructing the article in a way which would dissuade readers from wanting to watch the movie. For doing so, Inurhead was blocked 2 or 3 times for edit warring.

Among his initial arguments was that the plot summary should consist solely of two sentences with secondary sources. After discussing several times as to why this did not have to be the case, Inurhead suddenly did a 180 and decided that the plot section needed to be MORE detailed and expanded it from about 600 words to 1100 words. Inurhead reasons that the plot summary should explore the "chracters and theme" of the movie and include every scene. From my interpretation, this is in violation of WP:FILMPLOT, which states that the summary should be a brief overview of the main events that happen "as is" on the screen, and should not exceed 700 words (unless agreed upon in a thorough discussion).

Inurhead states that the article should now contain a brief two-sentence overview of the film in a "premise" section, and that a detailed (1000+ word) scene-by-scene description of the film should be included in a "detailed plot" section, and, while disregarding what has been agreed upon in MOS:FILM, insists that this is the only acceptable way. By Inurhead's reasoning, this will give the reader the option of having a very brief synosis available to them if they don't want to read a plot summary. As far as I can tell, it suggests a new way of including plot summaries in film articles, so I'm presenting this proposal (on his/her behalf) on this talk page, rather than having such a discussion be restricted to one film article's talk page. Plus, any other feedback that would be helpful in preventing more potential edit warring on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The version as of now is 649 words, and that is plenty. I don't know why the "premise" section is there, those two sources could be put to better use in the production section, and lose the premise section all together. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, why hasn't that guy been blocked already? He's been at this for weeks and it looks like he is one again just trying to revert back to his preferred version. Revert and report. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

SoSaysChappy claims he has been a frequent contributor to The Hurt Locker but he only started contributing to the page a couple weeks ago (August 12th, if I remember?). Maybe he feels he has been a part of it for longer... (?) (Talk amongst yourselves) He came in the middle of a disagreement and immediately took ownership of the "Plot" section of the page. He wrote a boring, clunky plot, replacing the short synopsis that was already there and which had been in place for the better part of a year. While doing so, he did something to the page that blanked most of the material after one of his edits messed up the article and he left it there like that.

He replaced the original short plot with a winded, unsourced plot filled with intentional spoilers (though not against rules, they were not informative but inteded to SPOIL alone). Furthermore, his plot also condensed major aspects of the film while neglecting other parts. I saw that Inglorious Basterds had one of these long breakdowns, but also had a more concise "premise" section. So I attempted to move the synopsis back into a section with that title "PREMISE." At every point, SoSaysCappy reverted it. Suspiciously the "premise" section of Inglorious Basterds was also deleted around the same time.

He repeatedly also reverted all changes I made to his tedious "plot". I first tried trimming it. Then I tried expanding it (with a note inviting other contributors to thin it out from there). I then again, tried adding a few small details today, while trimming some of the unncessary parts and he again took ownership and reverted it.

While film plots are allowed to be somewhat unsourced, the more complicated ones should have references according to Wiki policy on plot. Misplaced Pages is "not about plot." It is not about "unsourced, original" material. This film has also been discussed at length by hundreds of critics who have broken down elements of the plot. It would not be difficult to write a plot summary that is sourced, instead of adding original material that is frankly, poorly conceived and poorly worded. Even though I believe it needs sources, I have backed off of that and tried to work with SoSaysCrabby's version. That didn't work either!

User:Collectonian (above) joined in the conversation at the same point (or slightly earlier), more or less joining to gang up and isolate this editor. You see by the suggestion that I should be blocked, that Collectonian is biased. I have no issues with this person, other than that they were obviously canvassed and came to an edit war with claws out. Go back and look for yourselves. These people are making Misplaced Pages into a really unpleasant place. By the way, they were all called into the edit war by User:Erik and User:Ckatz, two long time collaborators with a history of hounding other editors and demanding that everything be "their way" or not at all. Ckatz even admitted that he had been wikistalking me from page to page and reverting my contributions for a year. A year! If anybody has any guts around here, they should come and stand up for the right for people to contribute to Misplaced Pages's pages without being ganged up on or hounded or repeatedly deleted for no reason. I have tried repeatedly to reason with these people and have left detailed explanations on the discussion page as well as on their own talk pages. Nothing seems to work. So yes! Please come and contribute, but not if this is yet another canvassing attempt by Ckatz in disguise. Inurhead (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. "Tarantino's Top 20 Movies Since 1992". Retrieved 2009-08-15.