Talk:Film poster/Archives/2013

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

External Links

A non-commercial link keeps getting bumped off the page. Any ideas? http://www.movieposterinfo.com. Thanks! Kpaul.mallasch 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed someone asked me to stop linking. It does have relevant information in an easy to use (blog) format. Some of the recent additions are still in the process of being filled with information, but there's a lot there on old movie posters if you dig around a little. Also, there are no ads on the site - purely informational. Thanks Kpaul.mallasch 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't allow links to blogs; that's presumably why it's being deleted. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I pointed out the reasons why the link "should" be removed on your User_talk:Kpaul.mallasch talk page but I'll repeat it again here:

"The site in question doesn't appear to have much noteworthy information about movie posters (many entries simply point to blank "no information" pages), hasn't been updated recently (despite being in a weblog format), and appears to be "gaming" Google and other search engines with non-relevant key word content such as various "Film School" keyword entries, any of which would warrant removal by Wikipedia standards."

Looking at the front page of the site, it is filled with entries of various state names followed by the "Film School" keyword, which makes the site appear (whether it is intentional or not) to be "gaming" Google and other search engines, and is not relevant to movie posters, etc. In my opinion, that is the main reason why it shouldn't be considered a "noteworthy" site by Wikipedia standards. --jca2112 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. We're using 'Blog Software' (Drupal) but it's not a blog, per se. That was an easy way to categorize the information, though. As I mentioned, the film school info is something new, which is why it's on the homepage. If you dig into the site a little, there's a lot of information about old Litho Companies, movie poster sizes, grading movie posters, etc. http://www.movieposterinfo.com/taxonomy_menu/2 etc. Thanks. Kpaul.mallasch 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So this is your own web site? I'm sure Mel Etitis is more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines about self-linking in external links, etc. --jca2112 20:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not own the site, although I did do work for it in the past. Also, as I said, it's non-commercial - nothing for sale, no ads, etc. Just information about movie posters. Kpaul.mallasch 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's anything in the site that should be in the article, the information should be added; otherwise, external links should be kept to a minimum, and it's hard to see why this one should be added. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs keep adding this site back, yet the content of the site (random "keyword" style entries, etc.) and the reasons it was deleted in the first place hasn't changed. --jca2112 18:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does the commercial site keep getting added back? Have you read the content on MPI? It's relevant ... and ad free, unlike the other links down there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.5.96 (talk)

Just to clarify, this anon IP keeps re-adding http://www.movieposterinfo.com even though it was removed in the past (for the reasons mentioned above). This IP then removed a link to a different site, which seems to suggest this was out of some sort of response to their own site being removed. -- jca2112 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. If you do not want commercial sites, that site should not be on there, correct? Or is this a personal grudge someone has against MPI? Again, I say the content of that site, if you read it, stands on its own. Also, unlike the other site in question, there are no ads - it is an informational site not a commercial site. I do not want to get in a click war. Can we have a neutral third party come in and look at the above two sites and determine which one is commercial and should not be on wikipedia and which one is information in nature and should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.5.96 (talk)

User_talk:68.193.242.180 keeps re-adding this same site on a semi-regular basis. Worse still, they have attempted to "hide" their link in an existing External Link by changing the other site's url but keeping the same site title. This (like the previous edits) appears to be a single use account just to add this site to wikipedia. Appreciate if anyone else could have a look at this issue. --jca2112 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason what so ever that this link keeps getting removed. It is an informational site, its sells nothing not even ad space. Other links that are in this section are sites that sell ad space, have dealer members that pay to list their posters for sale, http://www.movieposterinfo.com has none of the above. It is an information only site where people can research movie posters and related topics. You might have a small point if MPI had Google ads or even sold banner ads like some other similar sites, but it does not. The constant removal of http://www.movieposterinfo.com is completely a prejudicial attack for no reason at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posters (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with the site being removed. The reason(s) the site has been removed are mentioned above. This is not a "prejudicial attack" -- the site is being judged on it's content -- not whether it is seen as "commercial" or "non-commercial". Whether a site has ads or not has nothing to do with the value of it's inclusion, or at the very least is not the only judge of a site's value. Simply re-adding the site over and over again amounts to nothing but an edit war and doesn't change anything with regards to the site's value/content/etc. I've invited different editors on two different occasions to review these edits in a attempt to maintain good faith per Wikipedia guidelines. The anonymous IP(s) mentioned previously and seen in the history logs appear as single use accounts devoted exclusively to adding this site to Wikipedia. When that site has been removed because it did not meet the stated Wikipedia guidelines for External Links those same anonymous IPs continued to re-add the link in a bad faith manner, including trying to "hide" the link in a previously added url and deleting other links in retaliation. This does nothing to help the article which badly needs attention with regards to it's own content, not the addition of this particular site's link. If the site contains valuable information, why not help add it to the article itself as Mel Etitis suggested? I don't see how this edit war to add your site will help the article. --jca2112 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links section clean-up

The External Links section of this page has been tagged for link removal/clean-up. Too many links outside of Wikipedia guidelines are being added over and over again. Some/most/all (?) of these links will be removed. If anyone has any opinions or reasons why any of the existing links should remain, please post about it here. Per Wikipedia guidelines, please consider removing any external links and incorporating them as footnotes in the article if you feel they are of value. Thanks. - jca2112 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed the following links from the External Links section. Please post first in this talk page with any reason(s) why any particular link should be added back. See Wikipedia policies on excessive external links.

Article does not need any more forum, dealer, or "database" links. - jca2112 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete MoviePosterCollectors.com. This is a non-profit website with the best authentications on the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaMel1968 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Styles (Style A? Style F?)

This article mentions a "Dracula Style F one sheet". The Highlander article mentions an "Original style-A poster". I don't think there is an article or section on Wikipedia that explains what these styles are, and whether there is any logic in the lettering or anything like that. But the styles are still mentioned on Wikipedia here and there. This could make people curious about these styles. I'm curious about them. So, my suggestion/question is: maybe this article needs a Styles (sub)section? --82.170.113.123 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The movie studios created several versions of movie posters for each movie and labeled them as a particular style in the press book that was issued to theaters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaMel1968 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 30 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Okay, so what a Style A (or F, or whatever) is differs per movie/studio. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)