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)

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)]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oh man... substantiation is sweet. Thanks for fighting to keep it up. 63.230.167.170 (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what she said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.7.233 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto that. Cheers! Raingirl85 (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Also reviewed on radio programs and tv.--67.175.86.191 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

yes. Banjeboi 19:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.86.191 (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

maybe129.139.1.68 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes!--Digipatd 00:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Unnecessary Cross-site 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)

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)

Wonderflonium

Please stop it, it annoys me so... every time I come back to this page, I change wonderflonium to Wonderflonium, as it should be. When I next visit, someone has always 'corrected' it by taking the capital off! It's an element, an item, a named object. It should have a capital letter at the start! The city is Paris, not paris. My name begins with a capital letter. If you want a nerd analogy, look at how Kryponite is NEVER spelled kryptonite. Get it? Stop doing it! JaffaCakeLover (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Other elements, such as carbon or hydrogen, are spelt with lowercase letters. Krytonite is not an element, it is an asteroid/fragment of the former planet Krypton (and planets are typically capitalized). You will need to pick a different example other than Kryptonite to support your case. SpikeJones (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptonite Kryptonite is indeed an element, listed as Element 126. Juuuuuust thought I'd throw that in there. But yeah, capitalization of elements is ambiguous. I've seen it both ways, though I personally try to capitalize them. 74.75.59.121 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, Unbihexium is the 126th element. Rehevkor ✉ 02:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. You might be looking for Krypton, which is the 36th element. It's also not capitalized, except at the beginning of a sentence, as elements should be. Sammi.mcclain (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is your link to Krypton capitalized, and then you say It's also not "capitalized"129.139.1.68 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

That is incorrect. Sources do not have to be written. They can also be radio interviews or tapes.--67.175.86.191 (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Offical soundtrack has been released, and lyrics have been added to the offical site. Somebody has already liked to these at the bottom of the Wiki page. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

This is getting ridiculous as even the creators can't keep things straight. In EW's interview with Joss, he calls the song "The Freeze Ray", as opposed to "My Freeze Ray" which he is quoted as saying elsewhere. Methinks now they're doing this on purpose just to play with us. SpikeJones (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Felicia calls one "On The Rise" where NPH calls the same one "My Eyes". Probably best to remove them. Boter (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One thought - perhaps it is two different songs during that segment and both NPH/Felicia are correct...? SpikeJones (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved now that the official soundtrack has been released. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Short article about Dr Horrible and Dr Steel at wired: http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/07/rival-mad-scien.html JaffaCakeLover (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Steel has a Wiki page by now and it mentions the controversy between Dr. Steel and Dr. Horrible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Steel#.22Dr._Horrible.22_controversy I think mentioning this briefly on the Dr. Horrible article would only be fair? --Antihelios (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

The interview with Neil Patrick Harris that's been linked to one of the song titles [14]: Vienna, Va.: Did Dr. Horrible try to warn Captain Hammer about the broken Freeze Ray just before Captain Hammer pulled the trigger? Neil Patrick Harris: He did. He is human, after all. But he does manage a smirk when an injured Hammer runs out of the room, so he's far from perfect. OK, so they say Freeze ray, but they obviously mean Death ray.91.105.6.48 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Then if we need to cite that passage in the plot to clarify we can use this interview to do it. Problem solved. Hewinsj (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

It sounds funny to say they wrote it during the writer's strike, but it's correct. The Writers' Guild was on strike, which meant none of them could write anything for a studio or other employer, which was the whole reason they did this project, which was independent (Whedon funded the whole thing himself.) 76.118.82.108 (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The commenter may be talking about the use of the apostrophe to indicate a singular possessive ("writer's") versus a plural possessive ("writers'"). The latter is correct in this case. Boomshadow 14:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomshadow (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You are correct - the actual page used is here Dr Horrible's Remote Control, not just a copy, this is what was used. -- Goer2u4 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely an iPhone, and it's definitely not relevant. It's not important to the plot, important trivia, or in any other way significant. I vote to delete the reference and replace with "PDA" or similar. -- ChowRiit (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's definitely an iPhone, though, there's no logical reason I can actually see to call it something it definitely isn't; iPhones are never reffered to as "PDAs", as a "PDA" is a slightly differnt kind of gadget, being, you know...not a phone. No phone in existence, not even the Blackberry, is referred to as a "PDA", because even though they sometimes have similar features, they are not the same thing. You don't "text" (which is the term he uses in the dialogue) on a "PDA", you "text" on a cell phone. If having a brandname bugs you that much, just call it a "touch-screen phone" or "touch-screen gadget", which would be more accurate than "PDA", but I personally see no problem and no big deal with leaving it as "iPhone" since it actually is one, you know? Either way, don't call it something it isn't, is all I'm saying; just don't try to call it a "PDA". -- 70.118.80.144 (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It may actually be an iPhone but, as strange as this may sound, I'm not sure that's really the point. Joss et al have used an iPhone as a stand in for some kind of Dr Horrible designed gadget used to talk to his remote van control, it's never stated that it's actually an iPhone anywhere and, for the purposes of the plot, it isn't; it's just a generic gadget/PDA/thing. The fact that someone in the cast/crew had an iPhone lying around that made an effective prop doesn't really mean anything unless it's genuinely supposed to represent an iPhone. I mean, if they'd used the remote control from someone's TV as a prop no one would be scrambling to mention the exact make/model of the TV in question because that's not the point, it's just a prop. And the fact that the Doc actually talks about texting in the dialogue doesn't matter in the slightest because he was lying! He never actually was doing any texting so that's hardly an argument to start shoe-horning brand names needlessly into Wiki plot summaries. For the purposes of a plot summary the thing should be referred to either as the generic 'PDA' label, or as something more specific like 'van remote control' or whatever because, within the plot of the episode, that's what it's supposed to represent. It would be different if someone were writing a section about real world items used in the production of the show or something, but within a plot summary there's no reason to call it an iPhone because it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.108.219 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is exactly what I was trying to get at - what it is isn't relevant to the plot. Also, the Wiki article on PDAs lists the iPhone as a popular PDA, so, yeah, let's change the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChowRiit (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The smartphone page lists the iPhone as a smartphone, and the iPhone article categorizes it as both a smartphone and a PDA. I think we should call it an iPhone, smartphone or remote control. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As previously discussed, the fact it's an iPhone is insignificant so a more generic term is better. The question of whether it's better to call it what it is (smartphone or PDA, although personally I prefer PDA of those two as it's never actually used as a phone - he clearly has another phone he uses when Bad Horse rings him), or to call it what it's probably meant to be - a remote for his car controlling device. I'd err on the side of caution and stick with PDA, although "remote" might well be an acceptable alternative. -- ChowRiit (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, I think, but by calling it a PDA, you're introducing an element of inaccuracy. Doctor Horrible specifically implies that he is "texting" on it (though he is just pretending, the person he is speaking to believes this to be normal use of the device), as has been mentioned before. You can't text on a PDA, so calling it one makes the article inaccurate. (Even if you think the iPhone is a PDA, it's obviously not a clear cut definition, and some people don't see it as one.) Call it a smartphone or, if you want to be REALLY generic, an "electronic device". -- AlexDitto 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Goddess, just as the first person in the chain said at the top, you're all being "most anal" about this. Yes, it clearly was an iPhone, and we all get geek cred for noticing that, but in song Harris as Dr. Horrible called it a "remote control": "The remote control was in my hand!" It seems to me therefore that that is how it should be described in the article, as a remote control, and leave the fact that an iPhone was used for the prop for viewers to feel cool about at such time as they notice it for themselves. -- Davidkevin (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that whether it's one thing or the other doesn't help improve our knowlege or understanding of the subject, and I agree with the current edit: "While Horrible attempts to remotely configure the device, Penny shows up asking for signatures for a petition to turn a city building into a homeless shelter". You can get through the sentence perfectly fine without mentioning how he was configuring. -- Hewinsj (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, cast member Nathan Fillion identifies it as an iphone (http://io9.com/5029327/dr-horribles-singalong-panel-at-comic+con-yes-there-will-be-more-horrible)> That said, I think "remote control" or even just "device" are much more accurate than "pda". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdavinci (talk • contribs) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot outline for Act III

Okay, I broke up the rather lengthy single paragraph that details what transpires in the third act. It's hard to chose 'breaks' in the story since much of it happens in a single scene; does anyone think that the 'showdown' itself might be better summarized with more brevity? (which I, myself, am useless at) Also I tweaked a couple of sentences about appearances, as well as an awkward phrase from "Billy's device's malfunction" to "Billy's device malfunctioning". Hope this helps, and more power to anyone that take it to an even more polished form. Thanks! - Empath (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think that the ending scene (Billy uttering "a thing" in front of his camera at home) is being interpreted the way it was intended to be; I believe that it's supposed to be a contrast to his image as Dr. Horrible, who wouldn't have any feelings towards killing anyone, even though he still feels pain over inadvertantly killing Penny, which explains why he looks so depressed in that scene. I was planning on putting that into the article, but I had a slight feeling someone would change it again, so I'm going to mention it here for others to mull over. Wastrel (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the ending is very much up to personal interpretation, I've seen a lot of different explanations on the internet. I'd definitely suggest shying away from trying to give an encyclopaedic meaning to it, and be careful of not putting independent research up there - cite some sources if you must attempt to interpret the ending. ChowRiit (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In a lot of these kinds of "open to interpretation" cases, sometimes I've noticed that the best way to do it while keeping to NPOV and keeping away from OR, is to simply describe it as best you can without trying to put it into "context"... in this case, perhaps instead of this (which is what we have now):

His reputation bolstered by Penny's death and the defeat of Captain Hammer, Horrible rapidly rises to power as a supervillain and is inducted into the Evil League of Evil. However, despite having accomplished all he wanted as a villain, Billy feels alone and empty.

Perhaps this?:

A montage depicts Horrible as, his reputation bolstered by Penny's death and the defeat of Captain Hammer (shown in psychotherapy), he rapidly rises to power as a supervillain. He is then shown donning a new (red) version of his costume, and entering a meeting with Bad Horse and several other supervillains, at which point he begins to sing again. As the door to the meeting closes, he sings about how he will "make the whole world kneel", and that he "won't feel..."

The scene then abruptly switches to Billy, sans costume and alone in front of his webcam, quietly singing the words: "a thing". The closing credits then begin to roll.

I feel that while this is a tiny bit longer, it's more neutral and has a lot less OR than the current version, with no implications of how the ending is "supposed" to be interpreted, particularly the dialogue or the abscence of the costume in that last shot... simply noting what the last few lines are, and describing the visuals very briefly, should work just fine. 70.118.80.144 (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your solution (while I see the point you're trying to make) is that a plot description cannot contain "a montage follows..." or "the closing scene shows...". Put the description of what is happening in the montage or the scene, don't say that there IS a montage or a scene. There are all sorts of things that can be factually pulled from the final shot:

• Billy is doing the blog, not Dr Horrible. Why is that?
• Once Penny dies, Horrible's tone and attitude clearly change to one that is not the arrogant, confident self he once was.
• The last lyric as he walks into the Evil League room is that he is going "to make the whole world kneel, and I won't feel... a thing." He has accepted that to be completely evil he will do whatever it takes to destroy the world and not have any qualms about doing so... yet as Billy, he knows what it was like to have (still have?) feelings (his love for Penny), even if he has to publically state that he doesn't. He has to keep those tortured feelings to himself to advance in the League. SpikeJones (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. It's important to keep the plot summary as free from interpretation as possible. To apply our own interpretation is WP:OR. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are completely missing the point. When he says "I won't feel a thing" I am fairly certain that he is lying to himself about the pain and regret he feels towards Penny's death, hence the last few seconds of the scene where he says "a thing" and is clearly miserable. This also ties in better with the earlier lyric in the song where he claims that he is "fine" despite clearly being heart broken over the death of Penny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.118.122 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That goes under your your own interpretation... - Zero1328 _Talk? 20:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't get to say what it means, just what we see. If you can get a quote from one of the writers or actors stating what they intended for it to mean we can add that, but our (yours or mine) opinion doesn't count. Hewinsj (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Musical comedy?"

I'm not sure this is the best genre to describe it with, especially given the content of Acts II and III. I don't have any good ideas for a better phrase - does anyone else?

76.212.227.254 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How about plain old "musical?" I went ahead and wikilinked it to Musical film while I was at it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a comedy as well as a musical drama, I think the entire removal of any reference to "comedy" or "humour" from the introduction and genres is a mistake, and I'm fairly sure "internet" or "miniseries" aren't genres... ChowRiit (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

While it's definitely funny, I don't think that it meets the genre definition of comedy. I've been looking through reviews and primary source material to see if anybody refers to it as a "musical comedy" but I haven't found one yet. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What about using Whedon's description of it? I remember him saying it was a superhero musical or something like that. I'll look up his specific words, but that would capture its comedic element without calling it a comedy. It is more of a tragedy than a comedy. 63.230.167.170 (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the word some of you are looking for (and I don't blame you for not finding it, it's kind of obscure in a way and I feel like I'm a total nerd for even knowing it) is tragicomedy, defined in its article introduction as: "[referring] to fictional works that blend aspects of the genres of tragedy and comedy". The death of a major character (a kind-hearted innocent, no less, let alone the love interest) and fall from grace and increasing descent into evil on the part of the main character are classic elements of tragedy and mostly not played for laughs in the film (particularly the girl's death), but a lot of it, even in the midst of otherwise tragic moments, is definitely comedy including aspects of parody and probably a slight bit of satire as well. So, "tragicomedy" would be an apt descriptor; I'd say the inclusion of both that and "parody" in the genres, alongside the preexisting listed "musical" genre, would cover it quite well. :) (Oh, and Science Fiction possibly - the freeze ray and death ray and wonderflonium are obviously science fictional touches, and Captain Hammer's powers are classic SF superhero... though it may be safer just to list "superheroic" fiction, when it comes to Hammer, as we don't know the actual source of his powers... is that what they call the genre? Superheroic? Or is it Superhero or Superhero fiction or something?). Whedon sure likes to smack a whole bunch of genres together on a single project, doesn't he? :P 70.118.80.144 (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, tragicomedy refers to a serious play with a happy ending. This isn't that. SpikeJones (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So that would make it a tragicomic satirical science fiction musical superhero parody? Or something like that. You gotta love Whedon! BTW, he called it a "supervillan musical." Raingirl85 (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't 'tragicomic' kind of give away the ending, though? A person can read that statement (which is at the very top of the article), see the first episode, and conclude that he doesn't get the girl. Maybe should just leave it at Raingirl's 'supervillian musical' suggestion. (Is it 'parody' if it doesn't directly reference specific things? For example, the difference between action movie Shoot 'Em Up and parody movie Scary Movie - the latter makes clear mocking reference to other movies, while the former is just plain silly shoot-em-up movie.) Primal Zed (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you can also parody an entire genre. Scary Movie has references to specific movies, true. But it also parodies general horror-movie cliches, the sort of things that practically every horror movie does, by taking them well over the top, so much so that no one in the audience can ignore them. It also seems like Shoot 'Em Up was trying to do the same thing, although not very well, in my opinion. Raan0001 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the sexism criticism

Yes, the criticsm section, as written, deserved to be yanked. That said, in the Joss interview in the WP (referenced on page already), he addresses those criticisms directly, dismissing them entirely IIRC. IF the criticism section returns, please ensure that there is an appropriate point/counterpoint for each item, rather than just point. SpikeJones (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's generally classified as a "feminist writer", I always find it perplexing how often he's accused of "sexism". I have also seen an essay on this series in response to some the... er, more... vehement criticisms (which there is a 99.99999% will never be acceptable as a source here for the obvious reason that WP would consider it "non-notable" unless something really odd happens to draw massive attention to it or something, but figured it might interest those wondering what some of the kerfluffle is about), that noted that the sheer fact that Penny was a trusting girl with an earnest interest in helping the homeless, who got fought over (to a lethal extent, no less!) by two rather self-important men, can actually be seen as a... I'm not sure I'd call it "feminist critique", actually, myself, but hardly anti-feminist or anti-female, as if anything, she's probably intended to be the most sympathetic character and her situation tragic, having done nothing wrong aside from trusting certain people a little too much (it's also not exactly hard to argue that it could be a scathing criticism of the way some men treat women, as objects of lust or possession to be fought over, rather than as people). The essayist makes some pretty fair points in that respect; I mean, it's pretty clear that even Horrible suffers from a fair bit of hubris. Different people seem to respond to him differently, though; I've seen fanfics already that try to explain his rise in supervillainy at the end as "he's determined to find a way to go back and save Penny and is exploiting the resources of the League to so do", which... yeah, somewhat different interpretation there (non-notable again, I realize, but if you wanted to "get" what some of the fiercer chatter's about, I figured all that would help put it in perspective).70.118.80.144 (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I point out the reference mentioned above. Here is Joss's quote for those of you who didn't feel it necessary to click: I've been reading some criticism...of "Dr. Horrible" about the lack of a strong, empowered female lead. They claim that Penny is merely a prop for Dr Horrible and Captain Hammer to fight over. What are your thoughts on that? Joss Whedon: Penny is not the feminist icon of our age. And yes, she does exist in the narrative as part of Doc's fate -- but everyone in the story is there to move the story. Is she less real than Hammer? (Is ANYTHING?) We gave her a cause so she wouldn't JUST be the Pretty Girl but the fact is, neither Doc nor Hammer gives her the attention she deserves -- Doc's crush comes before he has the slightest idea what she cares about. Which is not uncommon. It reminds me of "Sweeney Todd," the Judge and Sweeney singing "Pretty Women" -- a beautiful duet with no insight whatsoever. Just images. But we shoulda gave her more jokes. Some may see this as sidestepping, but it looks as if there was no malice involved at all. SpikeJones (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Death or Freeze ray

At the start of the Act III section it says he completes his Freeze Ray. This has gone back and forth between Freeze and Death today. I don't have it to hand to check from from memory he very clearly finishes a Death Ray. Which he then clearly labels as "Death Ray". In plain English. Rehevkor ✉ 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Freeze Ray seems to still have problems, and people confuse it with the exploding ray gun. The question has to do with whether the red thing is a "Death Ray" that's been built out of a "Stun Ray", or if it's merely a Stun Ray with a "Death" duct-tape tag stuck on it. I don't know and don't even really have an opinion. htom (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Previous to adding the tape, he is shown to be reengineering the gun to be a death ray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.86.191 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the main reason behind the covering over the Stun Ray lable is because Dr Horrible recreated the weapon and changed it into something more lethal. The other reason is that it's a recycled prop from the TV Series Firefly where it was in fact - a stun gun. Goer2u4 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the question is here, he uses both a freeze and death ray (made out of a stun ray). He uses the freeze ray to freeze Capt. Hammer during his song. He then pulls the stun/death ray out from under his coat half way through his own song and starts shooting the place. Then the freeze ray breaks down and Hammer knocks him down, damaging the death ray. Hewinsj (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

100% Correct--67.175.86.191 (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Penny's last words

Just to explain to Hqb [1], I think I said it clearly enough via edit summary, that the closed captions for Penny's line says something completely different. I've seen a few web pages commenting on the "inaccuracy" of the subtitles, but that's all speculation. It's just too ambiguous right now. It's available on Hulu again, so you can check yourself if you'd like. The whole section needs to be more concise anyway... - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your previous edit summary, but since you never explained what the CC version actually did say, it was hard to tell whether your edit was justified. Apparently, the line according to the subtitles is, "Captain Hammer would say that.", which I really can't reconcile with the audio. In fact, the subtitles seem pretty odd in other places as well. "Everyone can blaze a hero's drill." (instead of "trail") in Hammer's song? Quite often, the CC text is produced after the fact by an independent company, rather than by the original filmmakers. (I don't even remember CC being available at all in the original airing.) What do others say? Is there legitimate doubt about what Penny's words are in the audio? Surely Whedon would have done a retake or dub if Day had misspoken a pivotal line this badly? Hqb (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I was referring to this imbd thread[2], but I can't remember. Basically they just pointed out that there are discrepancies, and someone blamed it on Hulu making the error. Unless someone gets a hold of the writers, I don't think we can be absolutely sure until another version's available. - Zero1328 _Talk? 23:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, we can usually be absolutely sure that what gets on the air is what's correct. Fundamentally speaking, here, the hierarchy goes from final voice (which is supreme) to subtitles and scripts. I'm not going to make a big deal here because I don't really think the line needs to be in the article at all, but the fact of the matter is that closed captioning is automatically wrong if it contradicts the audio. Now I can see where there might be an issue if she were speaking indistinctly, but she's not. It's quite clear that what Felicia Day says in the final version, regardless of any subtitles, is "Captain Hammer will save us." And you simply cannot make a case that there's some kind of error in anything other than the subtitles without a source. Without a secondary source telling us there's an error, we will have to follow what the primary source material tells us, and I can tell you right here, right now, that subtitles are not part of the primary source material of a video program. Maratanos (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fix Citation Needed

There could be a citation at the end of the production section pointing to the Myspace page for the Captain Hammer webcomics [3]. Since I'm not familiar with how to cite, I thought I would leave it up to someone else. ETSkinner (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it as a reference. This is the second time for me, because another editor seemed to be removing it on the assumption that readers here would know to go to the Dr. Horrible website and find the link at the bottom of that page. Hopefully the fact that this keeps getting requests for verification will be enough to warrent a direct link to the material rather than expecting people to know the round about way of getting there. Hewinsj (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Credits Useful for Information

The credits are a good source of info. I has the names of the league of evil: Professor Normal, Fake Thomas Jefferson, Tie-Die, Dead Bowie, Fury Leika, and Bad Horse.--67.175.86.191 (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"vlog" vs "blog"

Considering the name of the piece is "Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" and not "Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Vlog", I do not believe "vlog" is appropriate usage for this article. Perhaps what we saw were mere video interpretations of what was simply typed on the screen via a traditional blog? Perhaps Dr Horrible had a speech-to-text program running? SpikeJones (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I don't want to get into an argument over a single character, but I'd like to refute the point of your ambiguity. (a) In the first act, Dr. Horrible holds up the bag of gold to a camera to show his viewers; "Behold!" (b) In the second act, Horrible refers to "the LAPD, and Captain Hammer [being] among our viewers." These are the only two specific instances that are uninterpretable, while many others can also be inferred to the realization that Horrible is producing a video blog. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not use "video blog"? Vlog is just a bastardisation anyway. Rehevkor ✉ 13:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it seems silly to discuss "v" vs "b", but if Joss meant this to be a "sing-along vlog", he would have called it that. I'll grant that you're right about Horrible holding up the bag of cumin for the camera, but even with that, there's no indication that it is ONLY a video blog as opposed to a video clip added to a text entry. Obviously a video blog is more appealing from an audience viewpoint (as opposed to say, watching NPH type his thoughts into the computer at the end of a Howser episode), but I think that to call the blog a vlog when the title of the piece indicates "blog" is nitpickey fanboydom nerdsville nanny-nanny-pooh-pooh-ism... although I don't think that last line will win any court battle in my favor. I say we go with what Joss called it, and leave it at that. Besides, aren't we getting to the point tech-wise that twitters, phonecam entries, SMS, etc are all valid blog entries and don't need to be differentiated as tlogs, plogs, and slogs nowadays? A blog's a blog, no matter how it's made. SpikeJones (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(an aside - trying to be funny when making a point sometimes doesn't always come across as such on these talk pages, even if that was the intent) SpikeJones (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't think I'm arguing for/against what you're actually trying to discuss. I just wanted to clarify those two points. I'm pretty sure I actively refuse to enlarge this molehill. However, I am curious as to your reference: NPH in a Houser episode; what does that mean? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

NPH as Doogie always ended the episodes typing his thoughts into a computer, not unlike writing a blog entry before blogs existed (ditto NPH as Barney updating his blog on HIMYM last season). NPH as Horrible talking his entry into his blog is a much more viewer-friendly plot device. SpikeJones (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean I have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. NPH? Doogie? Barney? HIMYM? I'm confused. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are your pop-culture references: NPH, HIMYM / Barney, Doogie. SpikeJones (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A video blog is still a web log, so can still be called a blog. --RS Ren (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was sticking to vlog because that's technically the more correct term compared to blog, but they're both equally acceptable. If you prefer 'blog' that's fine by me. 'Blog' is more colloquial and is a catch-all for all derivatives, which is probably why it's in the title, but I'm not gonna argue that. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Video blog" seems like it would work as a good compromise in this situation, although if I had to pick one or the other I suppose I would default to "blog", seeing as it's a sort of catch-all term, and it was used in the title of the film. —MearsMan ^talk 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

When did Hulu limit viewing to US only?

On July 28 it was clear that it was available freely again internationally, but it's been noted that it's only to the US again. Does someone have the exact date so it can be noted? The way it's written now implies that it was never available on Hulu internationally beyond the original air-dates. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I only noticed I couldn't watch it there yesterday. Very sneaky. Rehevkor ✉ 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to a friend in Costa Rica mid to late last week, and I know she was unable to watch the video then. I know that's not the most helpful bit of information in the world, but hopefully someone will be able to find the actual date. —MearsMan ^talk 23:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"As of July 28, 2008 all three acts are online for free viewing internationally, but later only from within the United States." This sentence is too confusing; either the videos are available internationally, or they are not. Could someone please clear this up? I'd work on it myself, but I personally have no idea whether it was ever available outside of the United States, and I'd hate to add to the budding "dispute" over the contents of this sentence. —MearsMan ^talk 14:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the UK. I could view them online like yesterday, but tried just now and got the error "We're sorry, currently our video library can onlybe streamed within the United States". --RS Ren (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Role as reaction to the strike/How was everyone paid?

A section on the financial aspects of the Dr. Horrible project would be great for this article. The historical thing about Dr. Horrible is that it was produced independently during a writers' strike. The fact that Dr. Horrible was a reaction to the strike, which was about fair compensation, raises the question of how any profits from the Dr. Horrible project were distributed. Did Whedon foot the bill for the crew but pay the writers and actors a percentage each? Does anyone know where we could get a source on this sort of thing?Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

redorbit says "the actors lent their talents for free", iNews says "Whedon, along with actors Neil Patrick Harris and Edmonton-born Nathan Fillion worked on Doctor Horrible's Sing Along Blog during the Hollywood writers' strike and they, along with the rest of the cast and crew, worked for free" and girliegossip quotes Felicia Day as saying "the DVD we’re selling is going to backpay all the cast and crew who worked for free to get the show done". --RS Ren (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Official soundtrack & Liner notes available

http://www.drhorrible.com/linernotes.html

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=289601562&s=143455

I'll leave it to others to integrate the data. htom (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Funny how we already did that. Maratanos (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't the vocal recording dates in Joss' loft be included in production, too? Sammi.mcclain (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! That was quick

About three seconds ago, I added "At present, there is no legitimate means by which users outside of North America can view the film" to the end of the Distribution section. It's since been deleted as 'unsupported by current sources.'

How so? It's even supported within the article itself:

• The only ways to see it are via iTunes or Hulu
• Only iTunes users from the US and Canada can view it
• Only Hulu users from the US can view it

Each of these statements has a cited source, so why is another source needed to recap? There is a good chance I could find such a source, but I simply don't see why it's necessary.

118.90.51.2 (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly I don't think a recap's really needed anyway. It can already be surmised, and it doesn't need to be that obvious. The actual edit summary was "specific statement unfupported by sources". No other sources are refuting it. You might be too specific in what you wrote. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are ways for non-US folks to view the videos, just none (legal?) available on line. It was a too specific statement. Example, somebody could burn a DVD and mail it overseas. SpikeJones (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

DVD preorder announcement

At Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M5UDGS ; to be released 19 December 2008. htom (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

DVD release... region free?

Underneath the editor's review on Amazon.com, this line appears:

• This product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media. Amazon.com's standard return policy will apply.

This Amazon discussion raises an interesting point... does this mean that the DVD will indeed be Region Free? JaffaCakeLover (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There was a facebook announcement that said that the Dr Horrible DVD will be region-free. – PeeJay 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Timescience Bloodclub vs. Mutant Enemy

This is a little confusing. DVD says Mutant Enemy, credits say Timescience Bloodclub. What should we do? 71.114.210.83 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, in what respect? Rehevkor ✉ 07:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At the very end of the DVD after the Timescience Bloodclub text the Mutant Enemy monster/logo is also present. I think the "Timescience Bloodclub" is set-up between the creators of Dr. Horrible for financial stuff so everybody has rights on the work. Cyzor (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

more Dr. Horrible

see: http://doctorhorrible.net/sci-fi-wire-reports-huzzah-whedon-promises-there-will-be-more-dr-horrible/828/ — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary: The Musical?

I've noticed there doesn't seem to be much information here about "Commentary: The Musical". Given that it is given an actual title, and is a work with merit on its own distinct from the show it accompanies, I think it actually merits an article of its own. Anyone want to start one? --Robotech_Master (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely not worthy of its own article. A section in this article should suffice. – PeeJay 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an entire list of musical numbers that could be informative to fans of the show; so I've added the list as well as made of list of numbers from Dr. Horrible itself. It better organizes and simplifies information for readers. Wolfdog (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Sarah Michelle Gellar cameo" issue

I see this added to the cast, deleted and then reverted several times. The cameo was an internet rumor and the cast made a joke referring to that rumor when they said "and there's Sarah" (or something to that effect) in the commentary.

Unfortunately many who only hear the commentary see this as citable proof it was her even though the cast made the comment in a joking tone. I'll give it a try removing it and hope people will read this before reverting... Zwede (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof that it wasn't her? I listened to the commentary and it did not sound like a joke to me and I had never heard of this rumor before. If the cast is joking about it then there is probably a statement made by someone somewhere saying that Sarah isn't in the movie. The cast at no point indicated that they were joking. kingdom2 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Whedon at ComicCon, it was actually Nicholas Brendon [4]. Let's add that instead. Hqb (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Har har. Very funny. kingdom2 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's one of the rumor threads: http://slayalive.com/index.cgi?board=drhorrible&action=display&thread=3111 and here's a thread over at whedonesque discussing Joss' comments from the comic con panel: http://whedonesque.com/comments/17122 Zwede (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I've listened to the commentary a few times, and totally missed the joking tone. I could just be dense, I guess. JoshDuffMan (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Captain Hammer's Fist

Sorry I missed that that was unsourced when I edited the sentence for syntax, though I'm not sure it was vandalism as specified by the last editor. Boomshadow (User talk:Boomshadow|talk]]), 22:48 pm, 18 June, 2009 (UTC)

I had heard that it was Joss's fist, but I'm not sure where, and if we can't source it, it might as well be deleted. Surely wasn't vandalism though. – PeeJay 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Easter eggs

Certain users have been adding instructions on how to access the easter eggs on this page. In my opinion, they violate WP:GUIDE and are unnecessary trivia. If you want the trivia in, please explain why it doesn't violate the normal trivia and guide rules. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DVD Easter Eggs

Just forget about the easter eggs. There's no point in me arguing any more. Kotiwalo made up his mind when he first deleted my section, and that was never going to change no matter what I said. He has power in Wikipedia and I do not, so I am not going to waste any more time on this. I truly feel bad for all the people who will never know this info. Luckily, they can still find out that a vague innuendo of a rumor indicates a blu-ray release might be coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchdynamite (talk • contribs) 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any power here. Arguments do, and they derive from policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a place for guides. And as I said, WikiHow may have use for it (I'm not sure whether they collect individual movie easter eggs), so try to publish it there. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are the police officer. You believe it is a guide and I do not. There is opinion involved, but your opinion is ultimately what matters. If I keep trying to put the info back up then I will be banned, but you will not be banned if you keep taking it down. Like I said, I have no power and you have all the power. If the info was able to stay up for more than a couple minutes then other people might see it and they might agree with my interpretation of the policies and guidelines, but it gets removed immediately so no one will get a chance to judge for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchdynamite (talk • contribs) 09:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Be civil. Wikipedia policies clearly states that there should be no guides. Editors can still see your version in the page history, see that there was an edit war, and that there is a discussion about it on the article's talk page. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kotiwalo keeps deleting my easter egg section on the DVD and his reasons keep changing. My theory is that he's trying to protect the big easter egg secret because he's a snob and doesn't want people to know the "secret" info which goes against the entire foundation of Wikipedia.

Some of Kotiwalo's other false claims: "Information has been copied directly from another site, possibly violating copyright.." This is a complete lie from Kotiwalo. The original info did originate from another website, but it was NOT directly copied and it does not violate copyright. I made significant changes from the original source.

"It is unnecessary trivia" First, it is not trivia. It is info about the DVD, just like stating there are featurettes or commentaries. Unnecessary is his opinion, not a fact.

"This is nonrelevant information" Apparently, Kotiwalo does not know what the word 'nonrelevant' means. Nonrelevant would be something like "Dr. Horrible's birthday is the same as Jon Bon Jovi." Providing info on easter eggs on a DVD is the same as saying there is a hidden track on a music album. There isn't a separate page for the Dr. Horrible DVD, but there is a DVD section on the main page. So, until someone creates a page on the Dr. Horrible DVD, then the info needs to remain with the rest of the DVD info on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchdynamite (talk • contribs) 08:30, 31 July 2009

It violates WP:NOTGUIDE. It is trivia. Just that it is in the DVD doesn't meant it should be in the article. Have you seen articles about, for example, The Simpsons episodes? They used to have lists of pop culture references, wordplays, puns etc. They got removed, and they are directly related to the episode. They are trivia. Now, explain to me why this addition of yours should be exempt from WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:TRIVIA. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not violate WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:TRIVIA because I compare the Easter Eggs of a DVD to hidden track on a compact disc. There are many articles about music albums that state something like, "there is a hidden track located 30 seconds after the 14th song". That is providing directions on how to access hidden material. My part about the easter eggs is doing the same thing. A hidden featurette is no different from a hidden track. If info on Easter Eggs for DVDs should be excluded then all articles on albums which contain hidden music should be edited to remove hidden music info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchdynamite (talk • contribs) 08:59, 31 July 2009

Yes, it is allowed to state that "there is a hidden track", and not way off to state where it is. But you are adding very detailed guide information, and that is not allowed. It is ok to state that there are easter eggs, and even what they are about, but it is supposed to stay short and clean. Just like in video games, overall information of gameplay is allowed, strategy guides are not. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Accessing DVD Easter Eggs is usually more complicated than accessing a hidden track on a compact disc, so by necessity it will require more words. However, it is the same type of info and it should be included regardless of whether or not it takes 1 sentence for a CD hidden track or 4 sentences for a DVD easter egg. An easter egg on a DVD is a lot more comparable to a hidden track on a CD than to providing a complete strategy guide for a game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchdynamite (talk • contribs) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, accessing DVD Easter Eggs is a lot more complicated. But, Wikipedia is not a guide for accessing them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There is another Wiki, WikiHow for guides. I'm not sure whether they have these either, but you should offer it there. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to see the article on the CD you're referring to, the one that has an entire section over 1,000 bytes long devoted to finding the hidden track. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And about the copyright, it is copied from another site, with a few words changed. That doesn't make it your text. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a few words. It was significantly changed. There's only so many ways that specific info can be written anyways. There are many websites that say Nathan Fillion is Captain Hammer. Is that plagiarized info? No. I own the DVD. I tested the easter eggs and made changes to incorrect information that the original website had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchdynamite (talk • contribs) 08:59, 31 July 2009

There are a few problems with that. Wikipedia:Listcruft kind of sums up the problems with this. One of which is that you researched it yourself. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that it is not considered polite or in good faith to call someone a snob or accuse a person of having an ulterior motive. Besides, I was the person who originally removed it, citing it as trivia. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, this is over a year after the discussion, but wouldn't the simplest solution just be to include the "guide" here on the discussion page? There's nothing prohibiting that in the rules, is there? --Stevehim (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well.. yes there is. Talk pages are for discussing the article only, they are not forums. Rehevkor ✉ 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

From your link: "Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." --Stevehim (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.. but is not the same as what you were suggesting. Rehevkor ✉

Well, it was, though I guess that's not how it came across (quotes around guide was supposed to convey that). I didn't see the original edit, so don't know the specifics of the details involved (or more importantly, how it was written/read). As long as it was concise, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be included in the article (pointers as to where the Easter Eggs are), or if people object to that, here. Just write it in a way that's providing information rather than a step by step guide. --Stevehim (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Musical numbers

To address Wolfdog's recent additions: I think SpikeJones said it fine; musical numbers already listed in plot section, no need to recreate them. unnecessary plot and other phrasing details removed - keep it concise, please. I see no reason to have the song list repeated under the soundtrack section as they are already in the plot and on the soundtrack page. I do however see no problem with the addition of the songs from Commentary! who were also removed as they are not stated elsewhere. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 00:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, SpikeJones removed all my edits indiscriminately. My justification that I posed toward him was that if you look on other musical articles (In the Heights or The Phantom of the Opera, just as examples), they do all organize the musical numbers in the same way I tried to organize them: in that same standardized list. I'm still confused as to why SpikeJones refuses to discuss things. He/she has been silent but active this entire time...silence doesn't seem like much of an argument. Wolfdog (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I placed "Musical numbers" under the heading "Soundtrack" to try to make the list more relevant and tied into another part of the article. Wolfdog (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Both of those articles are start class so it's not advisable to look to them for precedent. The best format is probably using Template:Tracklist. Just some suggestions to Wolfdog, with no prejudice as to inclusion or exclusion of the list in this particular case. BlazerKnight (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The musical numbers used to exist in the article way back when the article began, but were incorporated into the prose per WP guidelines to avoid list sections that may be unnecessary if they can be "prose-ified". To include the numbers again is, in essence, a step backwards. Also, since you indicate that you are of musical interest, please read the Musical Theater wikiproject which states that the names of the songs should be incorporated in prose. With respect to fairness, the project does state that a separate list of the musical numbers is optional, but with regards to usage in this article I (and others, apparently) will take the stance that to do so is really unnecessary as the songs themselves have not transcended outside of their appearance in the webisodes - unlike major showtune shows that have had songs appear on the Billboard chart of years past or have come to represent an era, etc. (An aside - do not assume lack of response on your timeframe to be more than what it is) SpikeJones (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my side; I never tried to delete any of the musical numbers as they were incorporated into the prose. I was just trying to standardize a list as is seen on many other musical articles (in addition to naming the songs in the prose; once again, for example, look at "Carousel (musical)" or countless other shows that have both the songs in the prose and as separate lists under the heading "Musical numbers"--I am certainly not doing anything radical or original). If you feel this is redundant, which I understand is a valid argument, at least do not indiscriminately delete all my other edits as though anything I would write is unnecessary. Other than that, I was only suggesting that you communicate your discontents rather than continually deleting edits without any sort of discussion over what is obviously being disputed. That is all. Wolfdog (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking on the very same article you showed me, it will validate my claim that musical numbers lists are indeed optional, and by looking on any musical-related website, these lists tend to be, in fact, quite common: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure#List of musical numbers (optional) Wolfdog (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Which I stated to show fairness on both sides of the discussion. That said, what happens in other WP articles is not a valid argument for what happens here. Optional is optional, regardless of how common it may appear to be.SpikeJones (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr.Horrible/Dr.Steel Controversy

I think there should be a section on the Doctor Steel/Doctor Horrible controvery. I'm not bold enough to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.52.7 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Horrible Turn (fan made prequel)

Does anyone think there'd be any value in adding something about the prequel that was recently released? True it has absolutely no association at all with any of the entities involved in the production of Dr. Horrible, but given that it's fast gaining popularity, and Joss has commented about it, maybe there's justification for including something about it? Canez (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would second the need for Horrible Turn to get a mention in Wikipedia. If not on the Dr. Horrible page, it should get its own entry. However, I'm too lazy or something to start it myself, and it'd probably just get deleted by someone with higher ranking editor privileges anyway. ZachsMind (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the prequel should be mentioned in the article. 79.114.14.101 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

2008/2009

The show or the emmy? The show was from 2008, if it's referring to the emmy it should be better written or not mentioned at all. Rehevkor ✉ 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, when I reverted the edit, that thought came into mind, that the user probably changed it because Dr. Horrible was made in 2008, but it won the Emmy in 2009, so it led to confusion. I just made an edit that cut out the "Emmy winning" part, because it actually shouldn't even say that in the intro. I moved that sentence to the second paragraph that lists the awards it won. Hopefully it's fine now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I didn't want to just revert/whatever myself without discussing. Rehevkor ✉ 14:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Release Schedule

"They were first released online as individual episodes, with two-day intervals between each release." Following this mathematically with the first released on July 15th the second would have been released July 17th, then the third on July 21st. Either the above needs rewording, of the date span in the sidebar needs changing. RedKnight (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Continuity

A strange question to ask with such a production, but does anyone know if the Dark Horse comics are considered continuity with the webcast since they are written by Zack (IIRC)? RedKnight (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Considered continuity by who? The Whedons and the Whedon-in-law have never made any proclamations about continuity, and it's hard to imagine who else could. They may be forced to decide one way or the other (and possibly the same for the in-universe bits of the commentary and the book), but even then they may not give a straight answer. --70.36.140.233 (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Stage production

Blair Gallant along with Vertigo theatre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada has turned this into a stage production with Joss Whedon's blessing.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.85.212 (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Tragicomedy

I suggest that the Lead be changed to delete the word "tragicomedy". This musical film is perhaps a black comedy, but not a tragicomedy, which is "a serious play with either a happy ending or enough jokes throughout the play to lighten the mood." In addition, the work's website does not call it a tragicomedy. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you go by definitions, then "black comedy" doesn't fit, either. "In black humor, topics and events that are usually regarded as taboo, specifically those related to death, are treated in an unusually humorous or satirical manner while retaining their seriousness." That doesn't fit at all. --Conti|✉ 08:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the designation of tragicomedy fits. The story is fundamentally serious, but it has a lot of humor that's derived from the characters and some glib remarks and humorous imagery. I do admit, however, that I myself increasingly annoyed by the term "tragicomedy." "Dramedy," the original designation, fits, but I personally think "tragicomedy" works. "Black Comedy," I don't think so - that's a designation that's best reserved for works like "Urinetown" and "Burn After Reading." 130.191.89.202 (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe "tragicomedy" is a weighted term, reserved for authors self-describing their works and maybe for some critics to apply. It is definitely not neutral enough to include without a citation to one of those. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Dozens of reviews and articles (e.g., http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-dr-horrible-review-20121009,0,3765388.story), the press release for the self-published DVD (sorry, I can't find it online… but it's copied or paraphrased in hundreds of places, including Amazon, Wikiquote, etc.), and the official blurb and synopsis (http://titanbooks.com/dr-horribles-sing-along-blog-the-book-4959/) for the companion book all call it a tragicomedy. If it's really a contentious issue, feel free to use either of the above cites, or to ask for different ones if you think neither is appropriate. --70.36.140.233 (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Model of Serenity?

It's probably not worth mentioning on the article page, but has anyone noticed that in some scenes during Dr. Horrible's blog sessions you can see what appears to be a large model of Serenity hanging in the window behind him? It would definitely make sense as an inside joke but I've never seen anyone mention it before. CheMechanical (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It does kinda look like Serenity, but it's just pot and pans hanging. Screencap where it resembles Serenity, and here's a photo taken from the set from a different angle clearly showing it is pots and pans. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The Big Steal, or Dr. Horrible's replication of Dr. Steel

It's been raised a few times now in the talk pages, but I'm surprised given how well known Dr. Steel is amongst internet derps that on Wikipedia he was reasonably unknown by 2009 when the last comments suggesting that perhaps the semi-protection to stop Dr. Steel fans 'vandalizing' the page be lifted and something be added, but again in 2011 someone brought this issue up.

It gets a good mention on Dr. Steel's wiki entry, and to all and sundry who were around at the time (especially thanks to Wired) everyone was well aware that Dr. Horrible was a commercial attempt to Hollywoodize Dr. Steel which was quite successful, and thus must have pissed off Steel and his fan base to no end.

Doctor Steel#Controversy

It does go without saying however that this should be noted on the Dr. Horrible article, especially when I can state that out of everyone I know absolutely no one had ever heard of Dr. Horrible aside from 'Joss' attempt to make a Dr. Steel', and naturally whilst this is original research and clearly not empirical, I am merely stating the obvious because I want my intents to be quite open here when I say: there must be an inclusion of Dr. Steel in this article for the sake of neutrality, to anyone who knew of Dr. Horrible before Dr. Steel I tip my hat given the obscure nature of both Doctors, but most people surfing in here would probably be coming from the Dr. Steel page who, as an internet meme and pseudo-celebrity, has a much larger public profile than Dr. Horrible (sorry Joss) and will continue to have such.

That means more people will be coming here from Dr. Steel's page then wondering wtf there's no mention when it's pretty much all they'll have ever known of Dr. Horrible for. This with something with a tight fandom will lead to angry, angry keyboard warriors strutting their stuff claiming conspiracy theories of commercial pirating, and ultimately the inevitable destruction of the world in a glorious fight between both evil villains. Uh, wait. Slightly off topic there.

But, you catch my drift. It doesn't look good for us if we have a media blackout on big production houses being pirates, yet have in depth biased analyses of civilian piracy against commercial sectors. Can someone familiar with this Dr. Horrible chap please make these amendments? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC) (Add me on Twitter, geek, gamer, blogger @bashpr0mpt)

Firstly, there probably should be a mention of the issue in this article. You'll have no objections from me. But. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Dr Horrible was a blatant rip off of Dr Steel as you seem to be implying - how can there be a blackout on big media being "pirates" when there is no evidence beyond speculation that there is any piracy going on in this case? I'm not aware of any solid statistics showing which was better known before, during and after - not that that's really relevant to this article anyway. (I myself never heard of Steel until Horrible came along - I know of only one person who was aware of Steel first) If you're here with an axe to grind as the above text indicates then perhaps you should step back until you can be a bit more neutral yourself. Яehevkor ✉ 08:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Steel is news to me, and he reminds me in turn of a character in comix by, i think, Matt Howarth. —Tamfang (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you're thinking of Dean Motter. Dr Steel looks like a cross between Mister X and the army of faceless lab scientists (in white PVC lab coats, with goggles permanently bolted to their skulls) he once faced off against. Unless you're talking about the subject matter, in which case I guess Dr Steel is a mirror image of all the Howarth characters who become anti-heroes/supervillains/interdimensional conquerors because they want to make music and people kept getting in their way.

I highly doubt that "most people surfing in here would probably be coming from the Dr. Steel page", as Dr Steel is a big fish in a tiny subculture, while Dr Horrible is a minor entry in mainstream pop culture. But who cares? They're both clearly notable enough to deserve articles, and they both have articles. Perfect!

The idea that it's a "ripoff" is ridiculous—they aren't even in the same field of artistic endeavor. It's like saying the movie Galaxy Quest is a ripoff of the band S.P.O.C.K. But it's not Wikipedia's place to decide that. Given that there is at least one notable source (Wired) noting the comparison, it's worth a brief mention here, with a link to the other article. I'll add that. --70.36.140.233 (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the "controversy" a little more, the whole thing was a tempest in a teapot. ToySoldiersUnite briefly ran something called "Operation: Dr. Horrible Brainwashing Expo", then after a brief discussion (or possibly an order from Steel himself) decided to cancel the operation as counterproductive and against the spirit of their organization. Most of the Toy Soldiers commenting on the Wired article were there to complain that Wired had written an article about something that had already blown over. And that was in 2008. --70.36.140.233 (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123162939/http://www.streamys.org/winners/ to http://www.streamys.org/winners/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202204912/http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=3438 to http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=3438

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lifeofreilly.livejournal.com/597100.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080630055207/http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/blink/2008/06/whedons_horrible_trailer.php to http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/blink/2008/06/whedons_horrible_trailer.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129182151/http://www.king5.com/new-day-northwest/Dr-Horribles-Sing-Along-Blog-114666024.html to http://www.king5.com/new-day-northwest/Dr-Horribles-Sing-Along-Blog-114666024.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814092718/http://www.streamys.org/winners/2009-winners/ to http://www.streamys.org/winners/2009-winners/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515013621/http://sfscope.com/2009/04/2009-nominees-for-constellatio.html to http://sfscope.com/2009/04/2009-nominees-for-constellatio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424025435/http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/04/joss-whedon-wont-have-time-for-dr-horrible-2-until-after-the-avengers-2.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/04/joss-whedon-wont-have-time-for-dr-horrible-2-until-after-the-avengers-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)