Talk:Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Notability

This is not actually a blog, it's a 3 part musical production that has "blog" in the title.

The tag refers to " web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content" which applies in this case. You still need to show notability. regards, TrulyBlue (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afaid I'm still very new to this and not quite sure how it works, I've read the notability page but still not sure what needs to be done - I can collect a list of sources this musical has been discussed, do I post them here? Goer2u4 (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

You will need to add them as citations within the text. However simple discussions are not going to be enough; you need to prove "true" notability; things like national awards won etc. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this is any different from a movie that has only just been or is about to be released? It hasn't won any awards yet because it's not released yet but is in the process of being released (within the next couple of weeks). It's a work of Joss Whedon and features well known actors like Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion so it's not a little backyard video - it's a professional production akin to a tv series. It also has an IMDB Listing Goer2u4 (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK looking at the citations ones added; the TVGuide one isn't much good, as it just linked to elsewhere, and even then it's an interview with Whelon. Notability isn't inherited; i.e. even if he's famous, all his works may not be notable. Simply being linked to from numerous blogs doesn't make something notable. So I culled that one. The Chicago Tribune was just an in-passing mention; so that went as well. The same with all the other mentions; in-passing just doesn't count. You should also not that citations from the subject themselves can't really be trusted, it's a big conflict of interest; if the hit count have been validated by a trusted party, then it could be citable. However, you're showing good faith, and that, coupled with the fact that a couple of places have mentioned it in passing is enough for me to pull my speed delete nomination; however it's still not that notable; hence the new tag. The new tag is not a bad thing; it will indicate to everyone that they can help; but until it's released and reviewed I think you will have an uphill struggle to prove notability in any acceptable way. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pulling the speedy delete - I'm still in the process of gathering all info together and the first episode is due to be released very soon which I'm sure will gain much more widespread and notable attention. Amongst the things you pulled was note of an SFX magazine article, SFX I would think is a more noteworthy publication and it was a full page article about the production, though not one available online. I'll try to build up info about the production and post it when I can. I think it is notable more than anything right now (though coming up with a specific source for this may be difficult) because it was written during the WGA strike in an attempt to take entertainment in a new direction. Goer2u4 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, because the SFX link was really just a one liner again it didn't prove much :) --Blowdart | ^talk 14:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Obviously this discussion is moot now, but I just wanted to say... criterion A7 for speedy deletion of "web content" is going to start having more trouble as more major names (such as Whedon) start releasing professionally-made content direct-to-web like this. The lines between "established" media and self-publishing are blurring, and I'm a bit disappointed that wikipedia's guidelines seem to assume that all "major media" is automatically notable, and all "web content" is categorically under suspicion until proven otherwise. I also wish people weren't quite so speedy-delete happy. I mean, is wikipedia running out of disk space? Can't you give an article a couple months before blasting it down? PenguiN42 (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I kinda just wanna say "I told ya so" I knew this was going to be something really significant and look what's happened....wow :) Goer2u4 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News articles about Dr. Horrible: USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, E-Commerce Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Herald, Globe And Mail, BusinessWeek, Variety, EOnline, etc. --RS Ren (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of source

The fan site has posted that Joss Whedon has announced the dates on Whedonesque.com. Can we use this source or do we have to wait for something more reliable? --Rushmore cadet (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably link straight to the horse's mouth, but I'd say that's reliable enough: even regular news media sometimes cite Whedonesque.com as their source. Hqb (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've sourced it to Whedonesque as you suggested. --Rushmore cadet (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary quote

Okay, if anyone actually thinks this is terribly appropriate, feel free to revert my deletion of it and we can have an argument. But seriously, folks. Maratanos (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It speaks to the background of the project, why it was created in the first place. No doubt as time goes by it will be replaced by more "formal" explanation but until one is available I believe it's relevant Goer2u4 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'll parapharse all those minor little tidbits that weren't already elsewhere in the article (which were most of them). That being about one sentence. Seriously. We already had the info that it was created during the strike, that it is to be released on the web, and that it was a musical about a supervillian. There's not much else, and it's worth pointing out that paraphrasing and summarizing quotes is better Wikipedia policy. If you care about the quote, feel free to dump it on Wikiquotes. But this project is about information, not wording. Nobody really cares how Joss feels like saying things around here. Maratanos (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Site crash

Should we mention something about the fact that it's so popular the site crashed and it's high ranking on iTunes (#1 season & #2 in top ten episodes)? Brand Eks (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Henn???

The homeless shelter Penny is volunteering for is called Caring Hands. It is not named after child actor Carrie Henn. You can see the name printed on the fliers Penny is holding. Ouroan (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Crosssite Linking

Why is "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" linked to John Wayne? Some of the other wikilinks seem rather unnecessary as well... Do we really need to be cross referencing "curtains" and everything else? It just seems excessive. Sclark3987 (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The John Wayne link I could get - it's a quote associated with him. This thing I randomly googled backs that up a bit...

A MAN'S GOT TO DO WHAT A MAN'S GOT TO DO -- "One must follow the dictates of conscience, whatever the consequences. One must do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired result. One has no choice in the matter. Originated in the United States. Usually associated with actor John Wayne (1907-79) who used it in the 1939 John Ford western 'Stagecoach.'" From the 'Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings' by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

...still lightly tenous, and I can't find it attributed to anyone anywhere else, but hey, i'll live. Curtains is... less justifiable. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics?

Could we put lyrics in somewhere? Maybe link the tracklist to it?
I attempted transcribing the final song in act 2 but i'm not sure how accurate it is (and I may have got some words wrong):

Potential copyright violation removed. --Frostie Jack (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sclark3987 (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics are under copyright. They probably shouldn't even be posted here. Frostie Jack (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, copyright issues aside, if I understand Wiki's rules correctly, unless a Notable source publishes the lyrics then anyone attempting to transcribe them for the article would constitute 'original research' which isn't allowed. Someone more experience in all things Wikipedia should confirm if they can, but that's my understanding of things.78.86.208.210 (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More so than that, one of the things that Wikipedia is not is a database of lyrics. Mostly for copyright reasons. Excerpts can be used, but only if they are accompanied by some sort of commentary by a third party that demonstrates why that excerpt is important outside of the source material (musical theory, social impact, etc). Hewinsj (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no official tracklist yet: see the topic below this one. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track Titles?

Where are the track titles coming from? I've seen at least three titles changed on this page in the past day, and it seems that people are just coming up with these from thin air, or the most prominent phrase in the song. on an interview on http://doctorhorrible.net/, Maurissa Tancharoen said "I’ve seen also the sort of speculation on song titles that I love, that tickles my little heart. So I feel that once we release the CD with the actual titles and lyrics and everything it’ll be fun for everyone to be like “Oh! That’s what it’s called”. I think the track titles should be pulled until an official soundtrack is released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.226.76 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Those tracks need to be removed from the article, as they're just something someone's made up. I assume this article was being heavily vandalised, as it's semi-protected (although I don't see any discussion of it here). So we need a registered, logged-in user to make the edit. 79.66.90.252 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haved removed said track titles until such a time that a source for the official titles appears. --Frostie Jack (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They came back: I've removed them again, but this time put a soundtrack tab on the page, complete with links to the interview stating there are no official song titles yet. Should be indisputable now. (i'm not sure of the number of songs though) JaffaCakeLover (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd missed their reappearance. --Frostie Jack (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

Looking at the logs and history, this article seems to have been semi-protected to stop it from being vandalised by a single, logged-in (but new?) user. When it was semi-protected there doesn't seem to have been any anon edits for some hours, and there certainly doesn't seem to have been heavy anon vandalism. Are there deleted edits that explain this, or is something else going on? Otherwise, could we have this article opened up again? It really needs cleaning and the anonymous army can't get at it to do so. 79.66.90.252 (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to look through the history of the article talk page for WP:BLP violations, in particular, the addition of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" regarding the creators of Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. --Frostie Jack (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's to stop the person who was editing under a red name from keeping going with IP cycling? I didn't see many IP edits doing it, but I trust. Does seem a little unfortunate, as this weekend is probably when most anonymous wiki-magic could be expected, but as long as there's a reason and it's being watched... 79.66.90.252 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say that I requested it to be semi-protected because there was a significant number of IP addresses and newly registered users doing much the same sort of vandalism about some sort of "Dr. Steel" thing. It looked like a concerted meat puppet effort, and given that vandalism continued on the talk page for a while longer, I suspect there was good cause. However, we haven't seen any malicious edits for a couple days now, so feel free to put up a request for unprotection on the appropriate page.Maratanos (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB board mentions this 'Dr. Steel' - they're basically saying that due to also being a Mad Scientist trying to take over the world, Dr. Horrible rips him off. No wiki page, but he has a website and soundtracks, and apparently 'over 10,000 supporters'. http://www.doctorsteel.com JaffaCakeLover (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of fictional characters who wear goggles and lab coats is huge. Doc Savage may have been an early example, but I'm sure he's not the first. htom (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight edits for clarity and accuracy

I don't know what the established etiquette is around here, but I hope my recent edit was okay like this? I edited out a factual error (Captain Hammer does not throw Dr. Horrible into the trash), I changed a sentence so it parses better, and I changed warns not to fire to tells not to fire because all we hear is "don't" and it could be both that Dr. Horrible warns Captain not to fire the death ray because it will blow up (why would he know it would blow up though?) or it could be simply Dr. Horrible pleading for his life. Since we can't know for sure either way, I prefer the neutral wording. --Daniel Klein (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you examine the ~~Stun~~ Death Ray before and after Captain Hammer gets loose and strikes Dr. Horrible, you'll see that there are cracks with a red light shining out throughout the weapon after the counter-attack - apparently it was damaged when the 'good' Doctor dropped it. It is possible Horrible is just pleading for his life, but he does seem to notice the damage. But the biggest hint towards the latter is Captain Hammer's immediate response to "don't": "I don't have time for your warnings!" Not "I don't need you to plead for mercy" or anything like that. I leave it to others to decide if this is enough to suggest something more specific Empath (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad english

I am from Germany and seriously folks, that whole first paragraph is as bumpy to read as a dirt road in the australian outback. The list of show creators has three "and" in it and right after that it says that they started writing Dr. Horrible during the "writer's strike". That poor little SINGLE writer who striked, huh?

I mean it's one thing to lock this article but please lock something that's at least somewhat readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.20.226 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone

This is me at my most anal, but is it a fair thing to assume in the plot summary of the first ep that Doc Horrible is actually using an iPhone to configure his remote control of the van? Obviously the buttons etc of his remote control application are screamingly reminiscent of the iPhone GUI, and I'm sure Joss et al are taking inspiration from the iPhone here, but are we not on safer ground using the more generic description of 'PDA' (or similar) unless there is a reason to believe the Doc's remote control is actually intended to be an iPhone? Especially given that that style of the UI shown isn't a million miles away from other PDA phone interfaces like the TouchFlo stuff on the newer HTC 'Touch' PDA phones. As a Devil's Advocate to my own comments here, I've gone through that scene in slow motion and there are other UI objects shown on the screen of the 'PDA' which might actually identify it definitely as an iPhone, in which case it's fine to leave as is. I haven't used the iPhone enough personally to know whether it's definitely an iPhone so I'd welcome comments from others here. Relevant screenshot here. 78.86.208.210 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad about getting a vibe about iPhone vs. PDA. Brand recognition in this manner isn't really necessary unless the brand is significant to the plot (e.g. Dr. Horrible always makes a point of using Apple electronic products whenever possible). I hadn't really thought about it being an iPhone until I read your comments here - even reading the Act I plot synopsis we're discussing I overlooked the specific mention with the wikilink! If it comes to a vote, I'd be more comfortable with 'PDA' but I'm not going to press the issue myself. Empath (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the page is editable again for IP users like myself so I'm moving that we remove the wikied iPhone link and swap in the term PDA instead (unwikied I think given that there's so many irrelevant wiki links on this article already). I'll leave this comment here for a few days beforehand though so anyone who particularly thinks the iPhone reference should stay can say their piece and we'll take it from there.78.86.208.210 (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure that it being an iPhone is necessarily something that needs included in the article, it's certainly the most accurate descriptor--it's CLEARLY an iPhone (in a protective case), not just an HTC Touch or other similar device, as you can tell from the placement of external features (headphone jack, sleep button, camera lens), not to mention the UI (official apple iPhone widgets, AT&T logo, etc.). Furthmore, given that in the dialog he talks about using it to text (even though he's lying), it's clearly meant to be a phone, not a PDA (a word which implies to me that something is specifically NOT a phone--you don't usually call a blackberry or iPhone a PDA, even though it is arguably one, because it's first and foremost a phone). Orinthe (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that it looks to me as if the device displayed was not only an iphone, but the application he's using is actually a web application (presumably a dummy one) run on an actual iphone, not composited on or anything like that, as it's pretty clearly being run in mobile safari as can be told from the search bar at the top and tap/bookmark/nav bar at the bottom. Orinthe (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely an iPhone... the only question is whether or not that is relevant. I'm not convinced it is. Oreo man (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]