Daisyabigael

Hola~! You are a smart cookie. But, the majority of readers on Wikipedia are not going to know "ersatz". You need to edit at a basic encyclopedic level. If you are going to use such a word, please it link to Wiktionary. Thanks. ~ IP4240207xx 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Gideon.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned in my edit, other sitcoms have been removed if they were originally radio (such as Hithhikers) and in this case the movie was based on an episode of the radio series. Duggy 1138 02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Be careful, your comments are borderline abusive.

Duggy 1138 21:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you understand WP:OR. Please read it. Thanks.

Duggy 1138 02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remake: "With the exception of remakes such as 1998's Psycho, which is almost a shot-for-shot color recreation of the 1960 film, remakes generally make significant character, plot, and theme changes. For example, the 1968 film The Thomas Crown Affair is centered on a bank robbery, while its 1999 remake involves the theft of a valuable piece of artwork. Similarly, when the 1969 film The Italian Job was remade in 2003, few aspects were carried over. Another notable example is the 1932 film Scarface which was remade in 1983 starring Al Pacino; whereas the 1932 is centered around bootleg alcohol, the 1983 version is based around cocaine." Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did what you asked and now you're still complaining.

And, yes, it is uncivil to tell someone to do something they've already done.

Duggy 1138 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Was it written by Spike Milligan?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Calm yourself down a little and reply in a civil manner. Thanks.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You do seem to like getting into scraps.

Duggy 1138 13:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't dicussing the ref, I was discussing the other comments.

Now that you've said: "Maybe your basic urge to shout me down is getting in your way of being able to read" you should probably rethink your claim of civility.

I have no basic urge to shout you down. I disagreed that a sitcom that first appeared on radio should appear on a series that first appeared on television. I disagreed that The Goons spun-off into a film until you clarified with more information. This is the process of editing. You're the one telling me what I can and cannot do and what I should and should not do.

Why reference the "Calm down" post a second time... you're concept of time and timing of changes seems to be severly disrupted.

Thanks.

Duggy 1138 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank you for finally seeing my point.

Duggy 1138 05:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

How is Mr Bean a Sitcom? What situation is involved? I certainly agree that it is a comedy, but a sitcom, no. It's a series of sketches with the same main character. Very different thing. Did you not realise this or do you know, and are still sore over the Hancock's Half Hour thing? Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, you are defending it. Obviously.

There is one running character (Bean), a few semi-regular characters.

There is no narrative, especially the early specials where there are 3 separate sketches.

I don't know League of Gentlemen well enough to comment.

I don't know "The Worker", however, "Some Mothers Do Have Them" had a wife, home etc in most episodes there his ongoing attempts to find a job he wouldn't stuff up. There was a definate "situation" there.

I engage in dialogue. Who posted to whom first?

It fits a definition *sort of*? That's not fitting. That it certainly OR.

The animated series, from the little I've seen, is much closer to being a sitcom, but the specials certainly aren't. After all, Rowan had already been doing two of the sketches from the original special as part of his stage show.

If you really think it's more a sitcom than a sketch comedy perhaps you should change the info box on the Mr Bean page which disagrees with you.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

One of the pages being referenced defines it as: "a genre of comedy performance in which recurring characters take part in humorous story lines centred on a common environment, such as a family home or workplace." There is basically one recurring character (not characters) and no common environment. It also says "The definition of a sitcom leaves quite a lot to open to individual interpretation... We've had to use our own judgement in some cases to decide whether a programme which displays only some of the attributes of a sitcom should appear on this website or not. In most cases we've given the programme the benefit of the doubt." Which means its use as a reference is dodgy as best.

Wikipedia says "Sitcoms usually consist of recurring characters in a common environment such as a home or workplace, and usually include laughtrack." OK, it has a laugh track, but that's hardly a defining feature. "has a storyline plot and is more or less comedic drama" for the most part Mr Bean doesn't. The later ones had a little more storyline (which is when I stopped enjoying them) and I'm sure the movies do (But I've avoided them). The early ones especially, don't have a storyline, but are rather a series of sketches. "The essence of the current, modern situation comedy on television is that the characters remain in the same situation from episode to episode." Nope. "The term was adopted to distinguish the sitcom from other comedy formats: sketch comedy, which generally featured new characters and situations each outing, or the humorous monologue or dialogue, which did not feature characters." Although Bean himself does reoccur in the sketches, that's pretty common these days. That he is the only character is a little out of the ordinary, but hardly prohibitive. Anyway, it's one element missing from it being a sketch comedy, whereas many are missing from it being a sitcom.

Marketing Dictionary: sitcom [1] "television program focusing on the humorous side of real-life situations. Sitcoms are often centered on a family or pseudo-family situation. ... Typically, the sitcom is a 30-minute program, where the situation is presented in the first 10 minutes, developed in the next 10 minutes, and then resolved in the last 10 minutes." Once again, Bean doesn't fit.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: situation comedy (above link) "television comedy series that involves a continuing cast of characters in a succession of episodes. Often the characters are markedly different types thrown together by circumstance and occupying a shared environment such as an apartment building or workplace. Typically half an hour in length ... they are marked by verbal sparring and rapidly resolved conflicts." No continuing cast (except Bean, basically), no shared environment, no verbal sparing or conflict resolution.

Why, exactly do you think that Mr Bean is a Sitcom?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Definitions of categories are usually couched in usuallys and commonlys. Look at music styles, the definition of SF or what constitutes a Superhero. Hancock is certainly a borderly line case... it is a single-sketch show woven into a sitcom. I can't comment on LoG. BEAN Narrative plot structure

• Two episodes had a narrative plot structure (well, vaguely, at least.) The rest are sketches, some of the linked, but you'd be had press to find a narrative (other then "Mind the Baby & Room XX)

Recurring character*s*

• His gf appears in what 3 sketches? The recurring characters in a sitcom are meant to interact. They are a group of friends, family or workmates who all appear week after week. Not one recurring character and some characters that reoccur once or twice.

Extended beyond sketch length

• Except two episodes, it really isn't.

You admit that it wasn't a sitcom but when played togther it "looks like" one, well, hello, that means it isn't one. A local station played the first futurama film as 3 episodes, it doesn't make it a new series. What is your problem with keeping wikipedia accurate? The BBC might have it categories as a sitcom on some list somewhere, but when they did a poll of the 100 best sitcoms it didn't appear... and you really think that people didn't think of it, or that it was excluded? Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, there's one solid reference, the words "sitcom" in the info on a BBC site. Though it seems (but I guess can't be proven) that the BBC thinks otherwise when it came to the poll about Sitcoms. Even the wikipedia page lists it as "physical comedy/sketch comedy" in the info box and not sitcom (but you can't cite an wikipedia page on wikipedia). (In the interests of full disclosure I recently removed the "ITV Sitcom" category from the page - the only reference to it being a sitcom - and once I replaced it with "ITV comedy" there seems to have been no protest.

The problem is it's impossible to prove a negative. While a lot of people will "give the benefit of the doubt" or use Sitcom as a catch-all for half-hour comedy so cites for that are easy to find, reliable citation say "Mr Bean is not a sitcom" is much harder. It turns up on forums all the time, but they aren't reliable sources.

I gave you four solid definitions that aren't mine. I have no personal definition, but I pretty much accept the four I gave you. The way I see it there are three many components to a sitcom "a main location/s" (workplace, home, bar) + "a group of people" (family, friend, workmates) + "a hook" (will-they-won't-they, social-inept). Now, a show can have 2 of those and still scrape in as a sitcom, but to only have one... And Bean only has the social inept thing... doesn't fit.

As to how much I know about Bean, well, I remember trivial stuff, especially TV & film stuff. Add to that that I've looked into some of the stuff during this debate. I mean, I thought that the episodes reached a point and stopped having multiple seperate stories and went to single stories, however, it seems that they only did that briefly, and went back to 3 - 5 stories again.

Personally, I'd prefer the list to err on the side of caution... I'd rather a list which had only 100% sitcoms that had were citably turned into films rather than have it full of maybe sitcoms and possible spin-off films. Honestly, I'd prefer it to be "television comedy" -> "film" so we can add Monty Python and whatever else, rather than just sitcoms, but that's what we've got. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you don't tell anyone we agree I won't tell anyone. As for musicals (which I generally hate) I tend to say that when a conversation is had in song instead of dialogue... By which first Blues Brothers film become sololy due to "Think" by Aretha. However, I'm not knowledgeable on these things. The only think, IMHO, that stops Bean being a sketch comedy, IMHO, is that there is one character instead of a number of them... and I'm not really sure that that's a defining factor of a sketch comedy, but rather what we are used to. Since most of the episodes are made up of separate sketches it really does fit the definition. Well, it would basically be this page with a few editions (Monty Python, obviously - although only "...And Now For Something Completely Different" is a remake any with "Monty Python" in the title is obviously an offical spin-off. There would be problems with comedy duos with sketch shows appearing together in film, people would add them whether there was any offical connection or not. But the Bean problem would be solved. I can't see why TV Comedy -> Film isn't and more or less needed then Sitcom -> Film... if the comedy -> film list was oversized and out of control, sure, but otherwise, I don't think the narrowing is needed. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Good call correcting that. You seem to know more about Eastwood than even I do. Just looking at your editing history. Do you somehow know him? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm gradually improving the article and will help promote it to FA someday, I was wondering if you would be interested in helping myself and Nehrams2020 improve the article. Offhand it needs a image/popular culture section which I'm not looking forward to writing as it is difficult to avoid POV and original research and is likely to attract fan crufters. But I think such a section discussin his image and acting/directing style is perfectly appropriate. Could you help me write a decent referenced section in User:Dr. Blofeld/Launch Pad 2? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought you'd be interested? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see you re-reverted the weird comment on the Harry Palmer talk page. I had reverted it on first sight, but on reflection - it was only on the talk page, and even if it is OR and stupid, he probably had a right to post it, and I probably didn't have the right to take it out. So I left it - the chances of a consensus on including the theory in the page are not enormous, after all. :-) -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing my booboo on The Good etc page. It has been changed so many times that I got messed up on which one is right - this is especially bad since I posted the correct version on the talk page at one point. Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply on my talk page and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 11:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Sid James, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

 

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

 

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

 

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

 

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list