• SuggestBot postings
• Archive page 1: 2005 - 2007
• Archive page 2: Jan-Mar 2008
• Archive page 3: April 2008
• Archive page 4: May-Jun 2008
• Archive page 5: July 2008
• Archive page 6: August 2008
• Archive page 7: September 2008
• Archive page 8: October 2008

My bad. Learning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I read this correctly, I may use "Critical reception" to place succinct quotes reviewer's comments, citing then the souces of the remark? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Good or bad, a review is a review... and critics do not always agree. It is the amount of coverage, pro or con, in reliable sources that may be indicative of notability. Since I am much dealing at AfD's with films and people I have never heard of before, I'll be best to keep reviews down at external links like you showed. Thank you very much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just was also agreeing that I should not give one review more weight than another simply because it is "better" for the article, and that I must be very careful to myself be neutral. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works fine. I didn't like how they overlapped the sections. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason editors who have already debated the subject should generally not take part in the RfC is because of that very reason, they've already discussed the issue. The point of an RfC is because you are trying to generate a wider population of editors, with fresher opinions. If the people that had already debated the subject take part in the RfC then they're just going to be rehashing the same argument in a completely new section of the page. RfC's look to attract third-party editors that have not been caught up in the previous debates. It allows for more neutral reactions to the issue, and hopefully create a more clearly definted consensus line.

But, to clarify, it isn't that previous debators cannot comment in the RfC section, it's mostly that they shouldn't be restating the same arguments over again (that is why we provide links to the previous discussions for the RfC'ers, so they can see what we all said prior to their arrival). That being said, if someone brings up a new argument (something that wasn't discussed previously...some new way of looking at something), anyone is welcomed to provide a rebuttle to that argument. Again, it's all about trying to create an environment that isn't just a copy/paste job of all the old discussions. Did I do a decent enough job of explaining?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page certainly isn't the clearest thing. You could make a request that it better explain its rationale for "outside input" for the discussions for editors that are not familiar with that concept. lol. That would be funny to do...requesting comments on a request for comment page. lol. Anyway, that actually might be a good idea to look into. Right now, I have Termer threatening to call the RfC invalid because Garion96 made a comment a month ago that he wanted to remove all of the links from all infoboxes (it was on the discussion about the Actor Infobox and not the Film Infobox, which means he never actually participated in the discussion about the Film Infobox).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not just rename those trivia sections as "Production notes" and think that solves the problem. They will still fall under the description given at WP:TRIVIA as a "lists of miscellaneous facts". Work them into a cohesive prose "Production" section or leave the tag in place so someone else can do so. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm working on a "Marketing" component as you can see at WT:MOSFILM, and I was wondering if I could ask your expertise on something. The new component feels a little bit contemporary since I tend to work with recent and upcoming films on Wikipedia. I was wondering about the history of marketing when it came to older films. Are there any specific marketing topics that may warrant such a section? I'm not familiar enough with older films to know, but it seems like there have been some interesting promotions (posters controversial at the time and whatnot). Do you have any familiarity with the matter? (P.S. Nice to see that we haven't been on totally opposite sides of the fence with some of the recent discussions!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to the infobox in MOS:FILM, I'm not sure if using {{fy}} for the release dates has the built-in intuitiveness. The dates are specific, and at a glance, I don't think people would know that it's a "year in film" link. (Making it Easter Egg-ish, as some would say.) Like I've mentioned before, I think there needs to be clearer context for utilizing {{fy}}. Can we talk it out on the MOS talk page? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real need to talk about it, let's just change it to a "year in film" link, if that's OK. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that since it has been made clear that comments by previous participants in the dispute on the RFC are welcome, you should feel free to comment on it as well.--Termer (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on this please? Aside from the obvious effect of more white space (which shouldn't be there, hence my edit), I see no difference in IE without or without the extra lines. Perhaps there is a specific circumstance (IE version, OS, etc) that creates some sort of severe rendering problems? Although, then I would think it would affect more than one page and I've never seen an HTML comment to preserve spacing before. You may respond here or on the article's talk page if you like. I started a thread there a few weeks ago, but received no feedback. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, the spacing looks wrong in every other browser. Why should a page be modified so that it displays in a particular version of IE better? Please provide more detail on the issue that you're seeing. davewho2 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]