User talk:Bignole/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Spidey

How about reading what I said - there was an innacuracy - mentioning more about Mary Jane had nothing to do with it - the problem was the timeline was screwed up - so it looked like characters were doing one thing, when in fact it was completely different. This is only a small amount of extra words - but the grammar, spelling, and facts have been fixed - so you can make it less text - heavy, but don't screw up the plot line in 100 different ways (off the top of my head one would be Peter started dating Gwen before MJ broke up with him).danielfolsom 04:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all - there were spelling mistakes and small grammar mistakes, second of all - try to give me some time to respond - my internet is acting crazy (painfully slow - I've speant like 15 minutes trying to get past an edit conflict on the talk page)danielfolsom 05:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I just said that I was having trouble loading pages - and I'm trapped trying to revert and trying to reply on the talk page without getting into an edit conflict - so there's not way I'm going to list all the vocab words that you need to work on - I'll see if I have time later when the server has cooled off.danielfolsom 05:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I used a program simmilar to word - but - as to the first part - I'M TRYING TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING!! That's what I keep saying - my computer's going slow so I get an edit conflict- so between trying to reply, trying to revert, and trying to fix the computer - I dont' have time to pick a bunch of words out.danielfolsom 05:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - now I have precedency on this - since technically 3rr applies.danielfolsom 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to do this - but I'm going to temporarily (10 hours max) enforce 3RR - I just want some time to shorten my version - since length is your biggest problem - and then we can have a correct timeline, with correct grammar, and correct length. So I'm going to fix it - then when I'm done I'll tell you and wait for a response.danielfolsom 05:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

First, 3 is not allowed- second, I'm not trying to block you, I'm just saying give me some time to reduce it - and we'll go from there, it's not using a rule to win an argument - it's using a rule for the purpose of the rule - trying to make Wikipedia better by not getting in a revert war - now I'm almost done - so lemme just upload it and then we can go over it and possibly integrate the two versions a bit more if neccessary. I'm currently under 700 words - but I might be able to go lower.danielfolsom 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bignole, I'm just referring to Eddie as Venom in the Spider-Man 3 plot, because that is his official name for the film, even though he;s never called by it [I agree with U on this]. In all the official interviews and video blogs of the film's cast and crew, he is credited as Venom and that's why he's Venom in my plot.GPanesarJatt 12:33, 6 May 2007

Sandman is called by his name before the final battle by a news broadcaster and Peter calls Harry "Goblin, Jr." at his mansion [U're right he doesn't call him "New Goblin", but still...].GPanesarJatt 12:39, 6 May 2007

Man, all these plot-related edits and discussions... I need to see this film already. It's captioned this weekend, so I'll finally get to see it and not be so aversive to this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

Ok - it's now less words than what the previous summary was (in all fairness - only by about 10, but still). I removed the wedding ring stuff, and the hang glider stuff, and maybe a few more extras - and I also tried removing the Harry restaurant scene - but it seemed to important - I mean that's where Peter realizes Harry is the Green Goblin and he comes to think that MJ is dating the Green Goblin knowingly. But I'll just wait for your response on the talk page.danielfolsom 06:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok - 4 - but again, I'm not planning on reverting you - I was just trying to do what we both wanted while avoiding the continuance of a revert war.danielfolsom 06:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I responded on talk - lol, ok, my fingers on the revert button (jk ... maybe)06:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Waitasecond - what this guy is doing is essentially vandalism - did you see the two edits before mine?danielfolsom 06:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OH by the way, don't worry about the heated convos - if anything that was me venting frustration at my computer torwards you. we're def. cool - waitasecond - did that guy steal my signature?! (see phrase before section break)danielfolsom 07:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is your clone - your Ben Reilly. Wait til he starts editing your page, sleeping with your significant other and eating all your chips. I was thinking of creating a doppleganger account just to copy your sig. LOL (joke). Nice to see the problem fixed itself. I am off to the first showing of SM³ tomorrow. Should I just assume Harry is hubba-hubba for Peter, and that Peter has unresolved Daddy issues that only dressing up in costumes that "bind in the crotch" can help address?
I guess I will find out. :D Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiowning of Spider-Man 3

The section is split into paragraphs depending on the type of information presented in each paragraph, rather than mere number of sentences. There is no formalism in Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have noticed that the early reviews of the movie were much more positive. A few days ago the movie got more than 70% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps the article should mention the ongoing shift in opinions. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the article is going very well. How's the critical reaction section going for Spider-Man 2 btw? Alientraveller 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, we're doing well with 3. I hope it can pass GA in June. Alientraveller 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd go for GA first, we need to see awards and nominations and the DVD release to be added. Not to mention the DVD can cut down on many citations. Alientraveller 17:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, I don't like it. Star Wars has its own style which works well, but Spider-Man really is based in plot and characterisation, and I personally prefer production as something to understand Raimi's work as a director who bought humanity to characters. Alientraveller 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with it. But I guess it's just my work ethic: when I watch a DVD, I always watch a film first before the special features. But I'm weak willed, and I'll go along with it. But if you dare touch LOTR... (laughs)

I massively enjoyed the film by the way. I guess after watching it and Superman Returns that the modern dilemma of filmmakers and superheroes is that they have more depth than most action heroes. Maybe we were all spoiled by Batman Begins and how it masterfully interwove all its themes in flashbacks first. Alientraveller 16:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter or Spider-Man, doesn't matter for the costume to me. I plan to dig up some information on Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy: thank Jesus she worked. In all, it was Sandman for was superflous for me after Venom takes over the vengeance theme, even if Church did well (and he did remind of Karloff in fact). Alientraveller 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So I'm writing my information on Gwen Stacy, and I feel it is quite anorexic in the article. What do you think: "As Gwen Stacy, Bryce Dallas Howard had the trouble of portraying a character whom many fans knew as Peter Parker's first love in the mainstream comics continuity, yet had the role of being another woman in his life in the film. Howard strived to create a sense that Gwen could potentially be a future girlfriend for him, and that, "I wasn't acting like some kind of man-stealing tart." Howard performed many of her stunts, unaware that she was pregnant." Alientraveller 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Spiderman 3 Warning

Hey again, so I've been looking at the history of the sp3 article, and i'm starting to wonder if the warning in the article (the comment) is provoking vandalism. I mean it just seems like a lot of people are adding weird details (I believe one edit was "weight Sandman gained in muscle") - but that could be just because it's a popular movie. If it is provoking vandalism however, frankly I'm not smart enough to figure out another way around it, but you seem like you might be, sigh - don't you love trying to stop vandals from editting super-popular articles? Haha, well hey, just a thought.danielfolsom 20:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Eternal Links in The Bourne Ultimatum

With regard to my external links that you deleted for The Bourne Ultimatum article, could you give me a little more detail as to why you felt they were "linkspam"? Although I understand that Wikipedia is "not a mere directory of links" I also feel that the content on that particular post was not only relevant to the film but had information that would be of interest to Wikipedia users.

I can assure that when I link to interviews I have done with actors or directors, it is not my intention to "spam" Wikipedia. Any links will (hopefully) be informative and there to increase knowledge about a particular film or subject. For example, I take exception to the user who said he would "hunt down" links I had posted. I am not a spammer and don't intend to be one.

Although I use Wikipedia a lot for reference, I'm fairly new to the business of editing and debating the merits of an article, so any further advice or feedback on these edits would be appreciated. Icerve (talk • contribs) 05:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

Appreciate the heads-up over the spoilers; trying to avert my eyes here and there... the most I've gathered so far is that Peter and MJ are not "together" at the end of the film, and that the villains aren't really named in the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you noticed the password notification, this is why. Admins' passwords got exploited, and the Main Page got deleted. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aqua FAC

Hey, nice work nominating it Bignole! I just supported it. Davey4 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, maybe so. Either way if it fails this time, it will be a better article by the time the review is done. So it is great nonetheless! :) Davey4 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

Thanks for the review comments! Zaian 13:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Calista Flockhart would be perfect as Skeletor

I saw that headline today, but kind of hesitating 'cause it's rumor-ish. I'm sure that I could dig up the Variety headlines for this film tossing and turning in development hell, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I would be keen to have Brad Pitt play my part in my life story, too. Amazing how the Sun spends 5 column inches to say nothing at all...Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rustic encounters

Yep, I saw them before... kind of interested to see what kind of style Favreau is going to give the action scenes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the spy shots of Iron Monger? He and Iron Man have a showdown in an empty street a la Matrix Revolutions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many villains Iron Man is gonna deal with, though? Hopefully just this Monger dude and The Mandarin. It'd be pushing it to do more. Also wondering how realistic Favreau's gonna be, since The Mandarin has these crazy power rings... and there's also Fin Fang Foom, a recurring villain. Just wondering what he has planned for the trilogy, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard anything at all about it. Shaun Toub was rumored to be The Mandarin, but he's Yin Sen instead. (Makes me want to go find the anonymous IPs that added the rumor to the article and laugh in their faces.) I assume that Iron Monger and The Mandarin will probably have something in common in going against Mr. Stark. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm annoyed this morning already. I got an e-mail from Wikipedia saying that 217.24.248.126 (apparently from Amsterdam) attempted to request a password for my user account. While he/she shouldn't have gotten anything, I've changed my password to something else for good measure. And look at this disruptive editor's action at 300 (film) -- people like him are starting to abuse the logic that has been presented by the admin and others of similar minds. This may call for community action. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the mood for a revolt... heh... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, I got a Bic lighter... but really, the logic of these pillar-huggers concerns me. The implication is that even in a Plot section, you can't have an image of an antagonist, even though that character would be prominent in the story, unless specific and detailed (i.e., longer than a sentence, which conflicts with our attempts to summarize the plot) information is provided. It's just seeming to me that Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit, but if the admin doesn't like your edit, there's no use. And I really don't want to jump through bureaucratic hoops to challenge these admins, seeing that one admin backed the other in that 3RR review. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe that's what they call a pipe dream. It just irritates me when a group of editors rationally discuss what images would appropriately illustrate components of the film, and an admin comes by with the swift judgment of, "Eh, no." The excuse is that they're enforcing policy, and they just don't "see" the rationale. I've argued a couple of times that single frames aren't critiqued by reviewers; it's either scenes or the whole film. I just think that if even if we dug up reviews in which a certain shot was repeatedly observed, we'd need at least two paragraphs' worth to have enough content to warrant the screenshot, and that extra text would be rather extraneous for encyclopedic purposes. It just seems like a lose-lose situation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reported the admin for violating 3RR based on his most recent revert. I also explained that the images in question had fair use rationale attached, and there were presently several contesting editors who thought that the screenshots's rationale was acceptable. We'll see if the "copyright violation" reasoning comes into play despite this. If it does, that doesn't pose very well at all... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I ran into an edit conflict and closed out without realizing it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually using that, but someone beat me to the punch. We'll see how it pans out... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, that just made my day. I'll be on my way now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What a fucking elitist group. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I blame the weather. :) It's been crappy here in the Midwest. Ah, whatever, man... I don't feel like becoming Che Guevara. Don't want to be one of these users whose accounts get deleted, leading me to pop between anonymous IPs dropping off "anti-Wikipedia literature" on articles' talk pages. I really only like Wikipedia 'cause we all know it's a popular source of information, and the learning curve wasn't too hard to master. Admins are really only good for getting vandals blocked -- they ought not to be directly involved in content disputes, 'cause their privileges give them the edge. I think you've been blocked by an admin due to a content dispute once before, right? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse Me?!

Did you tell me to go and see the film myself (Spider-Man 3)? How can you be such a jerk?! F.Y.I., I saw the film the first day it came out! Why don't you go back in time and make it so you saw it the first day, then you won't be so jealous that I saw it the first day and you didn't, lol. 68.78.43.180 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And now, by adding a link, I will turn that clown-inspired frown upside down...POOF! -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)`

Thanks

for fixing the "Lost" reflist just now :-) Jayen466 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Man 4

I left a message with Cbrown1023, the admin who last deleted the article, asking him what he thinks. I'm not sure if a redirect/full protection is commonplace, but we can ask when he responds. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do snoop around, so I'm aware of Spider-Man 4. Speaking of which, when do you want to nominate Spider-Man 3 for GA? Third weekend just for box office context? I think the Release and Box Office sections can do with copyediting. Alientraveller 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Spiderman 3 overlinking of dates

Hi - I've reverted that edit, as the dates had been linked per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day : If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. Hope you agree with this approach, best regards, --Oscarthecat 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yo, Adrian!

I just saw Rocky Balboa and really liked it, so I checked out the film article. I noticed the GA status, so I was expecting some quality content. However, both Casting and Items and references from previous films are mostly uncited and loaded with trivial information, not being backed by any kind of real-world importance. Not to mention that there's an indiscriminate table of box office information by the weekend. It really does not seem to meet Good Article standards; I'm considering de-listing it. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Watery FAC

I've made some suggestions on improving the clarity of the content. I also corrected some punctuation issues so I didn't have to write about each spot where the punctuation was off. I can help revise the article with some of the sentence structuring if you like. Also, shouldn't the article be at Aquaman (pilot)? It's not actually a whole TV program, ya know... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Sorry, went out to breakfast, just got your message. (Alaska time, its only 8:15 am here).

My stance on this comes from our mission filed with the IRS to gain our non-profit status, our policy and the WMF's stance. We are not here to create the best enycyclopedia possible. That would require abandoning all claims of copyright whatsoever and putting in full resolution images of everything. We are here to build a free content encyclopedia. The goal of wikipedia is not wikipedia. It is to create a compendium of knowledge to be given out. The website doesn't matter, although its nice. We are here to give away our content to everyone, and to give them the same rights to do what they see fit with it so long as they give others those same rights as well. Thats free content. Fair use images allow no derivitives, dont allow the person downstream from us the ability to use that image in any way they see fit. That is 100% counter to the goals of free content, of wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation. These images are a cancer, because the compromise our use of the GFDL. Suddenly not all our content is liscensed under it. This seems completely backwards. If projects that are better developed then ours, the de encyclopedia (second most pages, but whereas the majority of en pages our stubs, the average length of a de article is greater, their content is somewhat better developed then ours) can excise all fair use images, then there is no reson we can not as well. -M^ask? 16:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You deal with the hand that you're dealt. To be honest, I dont care much for arguments over whether it's fair or not (in terms of differing copyright policies, not as in fair use) because we have tougher copyright laws here. That matters precisely zero to our overal goal of a freely reproducible, freely modifiable encyclopedia. We're playing a game of poker, dealt a starting hand, we play with that, not take more cards because the other player was given a better starting hand. We are here for free content. Period. Fair use has been tolerated by en for a while now, and now is slowly losing support in some areas. I hope it will eventually be all areas, but to be honest I dont see that happening. So I'll settle on only keeping those were it is the most justifiable. Notice I don't remove them everwhere. I let company logos stay, I let images in episode articles (not lists) stay. Simply because I know the community still supports that to an extent. Do I want them gone? Yes. Do I think that will happen? No. Am I going to waste my time trying to force those out anyway? Not on your life. -M^ask? 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe, that to make Wikipedia the best "free" encyclopedia, we have to sacrafice all non-free content. Did the conversation get to boring so you had to make a joke, or did you just say that and intend it to be a serious comment? Because that's either a brilliant parody, or you have serious issues defining "free" and based on that no longer find you informed enough to continue this conversation. -M^ask? 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you make this?

Hey Bignole, can I use this comment leaver? I would like to know how to use one.

Oh yah. I've been wondering this. On comments and talk pages, is there a way that my name and date is automaticaly left after my comment instead of me manualy typing it out each time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Pepin (talk • contribs)

You do know that it says you're an admin under "About Me" on your user page? Traitor. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've extended the olive branch to Ed after cooling off over the image situation. I've tried to explain the situation, and hopefully a different approach can be taken in adhering to the policy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; probably better to usher in a new age. I'll also be seeing Spider-Man 3 captioned tonight, so I'll soon be back in the game. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I love what you've done with the place

Just remember to add speedy deletion tags to sub-articles when you're done. Regarding Aquaman, I like it so far but I'm not so good with copyediting, I just think it's interesting content-wise though. In the meantime, I really would like to speed up work on E.T. in time for its 25th anniversary. Can I do it? Alientraveller 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

E.T. was released on June 11 1982, but I'd rather shoot for FA quickly. I have plenty of citation material to sort out first too. Alientraveller 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated E.T. for GA, and I'd like you to either review it, or give me a quick mini-peer review, before I snap my fingers and nominate it for FA? Yay? Alientraveller 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I feel like Elliott on his bike. I've nominated it for FAC, and I've answered a couple of your queries: I pulled out another negative review, and created a Popular culture section. Alientraveller 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Smallville wiki links

Hello, Bignole. I see that the links to the Smallville wiki have been removed from the Season pages due to them being in the headers. This is understandable, but unfortunate, as the links generated interest and potential volunteers for the wiki. Would it be appropriate to move a link to the External links section instead? I see a wikicities link there, but the Smallville wiki is a whole 'nother animal. The wikicities site is basically a fansite that the owner created, and it is bereft of content and very not-user-friendly. Even though anybody can sign up, he decides who he gives permission to edit, and basically has sole discretion of the content (most of which he copied from the SV Wiki). I replaced the one on the Season 4 page, but I thought I'd drop you a line to ask your opinion about how best to include links to the wiki. Marikology 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 review

I just got back from the film. I thought it was good, but not great. The individual storylines were fine on their own, but I think together, it was too much. Should have been a maximum of two for the film, though I did like Harry's psychological manipulation of Peter Parker the most. The other two storylines weren't as personal; if they had room, they should have developed Flint Marko's family crisis some more. I know there were scenes that were left on the cutting room floor. As for Venom, well... I don't think with the screen time that Grace's character got, that there was enough anger or rage developed for him. Seems like that could have been a stand-alone movie on its own. I did like the tag-teaming of Spidey and Harry against Venom and Sandman, though Venom seemed oddly missing for long moments while the good duo took on Sandman. I kind of miss Doc Ock... I think his battle with Spidey entailed a lot of cool effects while still fighting close-range (especially with Spidey dodging the tentacles). Don't get me wrong, I thought the themes of Parker's personal issues played out well enough, but the way the villains were used were subdued, as the storylines' impacts canceled each other out. But yeah, now I can read the article! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The train sequence is exactly what I was thinking about when I mentioned my preference for Doc Ock. That was real tension. I'm not sure where the film series can go now; I really would not want Carnage, honestly. My friends say he should be in the next movie, but I really don't see how it could play out. Carnage is like a poor man's Joker; psychotic, but not really a good foil to Spider-Man. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the studio will take advantage of the leftover symbiote in Dr. Connors' lab. Mysterio might be a good choice if they could change him up to make him more of an illusionist in a psychological sense (like Scarecrow, I guess) and have Spidey suffer delusions like seeing Mary Jane get harmed and not being able to do anything. Also, I just remembered The Lizard as a candidate, though I can't imagine what kind of interesting plot could come with him.

One other thing that bothered me about the film -- what the heck influenced the symbiote to crash-land right next to Peter Parker? That seemed too random and a little too hard to believe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I pretty much exclaimed "Oh jeez" when Peter put his hair down after obliterating Sandman in the subway fight. I haven't always liked the comic aspect of the Spider-Man universe (though the stuff with J. Jonah Jameson was pretty funny). I guess I could see the purpose of "goofy" Parker and "dark, suave" Parker being an interesting mix, but it came up really odd on the screen. Some things like him flirting/bribing with the nightclub hostess should've been more emphasized than a cocky walk down the street. I guess his behavior was to keep the dark side relatively light-hearted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude! Random thought -- what the heck would happen if the symbiote took over a lion!?!?! That would be some kind of twisted. Yeah. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal balling

I've responded to the admin and left a comment on the SM4 talk page. Perhaps people need to be aware that announcements do not ensure actual production, unlike the Olympics and Presidential elections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've responded accordingly. The deletion review clearly did not have a strong chorus of permitting recreation. The admin's summary itself even dismissed the argument as "moot" because he seemed to like what was put together by an editor, regardless of whether the film would take place or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it needs to be demonstrated, outside of citing policy, that announced films do not qualify as expected events. Based on the projects that have lingered in development hell, future films do not come close to "almost certain" to take place. As you've seen, I've presented examples to show that these things aren't always fast-tracked. People can argue their interpretations of WP:CRYSTAL, and I think we ought to provide sufficient evidence that films are not a medium in which they can be scheduled or expected events. I don't know about using Halo or The Hobbit as examples, though... they haven't really been appropriately addressed since the cancellation of production. I have some examples of redirected articles at my link repository, such as Knight Rider or Magneto. Without presenting evidence of film fallibility, the arguments are going to be circuitous. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend mentioning the essay on arguments to avoid. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. The article is going to be the target of bullshit speculation (it already is, apparently) for months until something actually happens. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, based on their logic, we should go and create articles out of my Future articles subpage right now, even the one-headliners. Not sure where the threshold exists to meet sufficient documentation. I tried to lead with my vote to explain the why, but I guess people don't really bother looking at others' opinions. I don't want to have so much discussion in the AfD, though... it'll make the page too long-winded like a certain sequel trilogy AfD. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on Shrek 4. This crystal ball issue needs to be brought up with WikiProject Films. I think it should be added to the style guidelines when it is most appropriate to create an article (with flexibility provided, of course). I'll mention the possibility and point to Spider-Man 4's AfD. I think it may be more appropriate to have film article editors share their opinions about that article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've informed the community at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Tried to remain neutral in pointing them there, but I'm not sure if I did the best job. :-P We'll see what opinions they have. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I've looked closer at Spider-Man 4 and the citing sucks. I just saw that both Blogcritic Magazine and Total Film basically point to the BBC article for the source, so there is no apparent reason to have them. This seems like potentially intentional exaggeration. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest... his cite fu is weak. I'm not sure where the idea of piling up the citations at the end of the article came from. It's like that gray world between in-line citations and having references at the end of the article. I salvaged a couple of items for the film series articles (length of script development and the studio's intent to move on, which wasn't made clear in the first place), but everything else seems redundant, even unto itself. Oh, well. AfD seems to be OK so far; hope it doesn't run into a no consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They're all baked, I tell ya! *sigh* If it's kept through no consensus, I'm importing the stuff from the film series article. It's better than that mess an admin put together. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I fear that the impression of an AfD may lead editors like the most recent one to be like, "OH NOES!!!1 THE INFO WILL BE GONE FOREVER IF WE DO NOT KEEP THIS!" I was thinking last night, after seeing the decline of critical reaction for the third installment, and its box office run possibly being cut fairly short by the other tentpoles, Shrek and POTC 3. Meh, I just feel really reluctant to have this article at this stage, especially seeing the speculative edits that have been made. Maybe I should keep a subpage and just overwrite whatever crap is on there every once in a while... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a lot of devoted speculation... haha. —

Aquaman

Hey Bignole, I thought of a really great idea. We should use this as the image in the information box, and then we won't need to logo or the screen capture, as this represents both quite well, and is probably better known. It would reduce the amount of fair-use images as well, which would be a plus for the feature review. Davey4 04:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I know, what I meant was we swap that for the other two (black logo and swimming picture), and have the new one where the black one was, and since the new one shows us everything we need to know, we don't need more than the one fair-use image anymore. Davey4 04:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. I just thought since it is kind of "out there", maybe it would be a better fair-use image. Plus it shows the actor really clearly, which is something the article kinda lacks. Oh, and I'm not sure how much it has been dwnloaded don't know where you find that info. Davey4 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, if your not opposed to the idea, I'll think it over some more. Do you think the review has a good chance of passing, what still need to be done? Davey4 04:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote box looks really really good! I agree with you Re: the reaction section, the release stuff is probably enough and is neutral. The info is comprehensive enough there, so people can draw there own conclusions from that. Davey4 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK true. Maybe we should mention that it also entered the Top 10 when released on the Video marketplace as well[1]. Davey4 04:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll metnion that, and If I find a more comprehensive source, then we'll replace it. Also, what about the popularity of the trailr on youtube? Davey4 05:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought it may be ok to mention that it was one of the most watched videos before it was removed. I'm going to attempt to expand the filming section a little. Davey4 05:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! Great work so far as well Bignole! Davey4 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Raul's opinion is supreme. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if I would consider the prose compelling. Editors like you and I do just fine with finding citations and describing the information, but I think that the general weakness is that the information, even when it's lined up appropriately, doesn't quite flow in an encyclopedic fashion. I think sentences could be written to have smoother transitions, and there are parts of the article where it sounds like casual writing. For example, "Though it is unclear to what extent..." and "However, it was not picked up..." Maybe the "However" is fine, but examples of that kind of personal perspective, especially the uncertain kind, need to be more encyclopedic sounding. Maybe you could contact someone from the League of Copy-editing or whatever it's called, to help with the article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the two Oppose votes don't count, you have full support right now. Things look good! :-D Now, to get my Fight Club in the FAC process... I'm terrified to be criticized over it, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Yep... but the cast does need to be listed somewhere (section by itself preferable, not necessarily as a list, but within a section). I don't consider "starring Joe Blow and Nancy Smith" to be a cast section! And yes, I do realize that there won't be cast sections for some articles - thinking of some documentaries where just the narrator is mentioned, for example. If it's not clear that the cast is discussed in the article, I'm tagging it so that it can be either delineated from surrounding text, or added. SkierRMH 05:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Halloween, which also has the the stars listed in the first paragraph. Like I said, listed somewhere... but I do believe (personal opinion) that the non-stars (supporting cast, especially if they can be wikilinked) normally should get a mention in an article. SkierRMH 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Film series

I was brainstorming about how to improve Spider-Man film series today, and I have a few ideas. First of all, I was thinking that we could probably move most of Spider-Man (film)#Development here, as it's not directly relevant to the actual Spider-Man. Also, I noticed Spider-Man (Unfilmed Cannon version) in your contributions, and I don't think that the information is false. There is redundancy with the information in the first film's Development section. I was thinking that we could have a History section for the film series article and break it down into a few subsections. Also, I think that the plot summaries should be shortened even further, and maybe base new summaries on the official synopses of these films instead. In addition, we could create a table (a nice-looking one) that could display the box office information of the films so far, show their rankings in the U.S. and worldwide, and show how much all the films have made domestically and internationally. As for reviews, we should find reviews that address all three films if possible. There's a lot of reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, and I'm sure a few of them will say something about the overall opinion of the films so far. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This also mentions another source that talks about similar information to what the unfilmed Cannon version article has said. We probably need to do more sleuthing than depending on Google to find this old information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a table of box office information at my sandbox. Any suggestions for the formatting or style? I know it's pretty simple, so any suggestions would be appreciated. Also, I might create one for % recreation with stuff like RT, Metacritic, and Yahoo!, but wasn't sure if that would be too promotional of these. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of what we can do with the list of characters. I was considering a content fork to create a list of minor characters in the Spider-Man film series, but that's more maintenance. It seems like the list of characters for the film series is unnecessarily long and probably a little too detailed (especially with some GIPU coming through and expanding the descriptions). I could see if I can reformat the characters into a table, perhaps to have a "1" "2" "3" triple column to acknowledge what films the characters were in. Or is that also too much detail? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to figure out... there are minor roles that may not necessarily appear in the main film articles, like Theresa Russell as Sandman's wife. A list would not be bad because it would be comprehensive, and if editors complain, the list is available with all the names. It'd be easier than a List of characters from Spider-Man 2 and two other lists for the other two films. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll start putting something together based on what you gave me, in the Sandbox. Plus, it would be a unique resource because it essentially compiles the cast of a film series, and not per film like a place like IMDb would do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, will you do that? I'm doing pretty rudimentary coding, and a list should look a little more stylish. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I just added citations for the reviews. I'm thinking about purging the prose in the Reception section and instead try to find reviews that observe the series in its entirety thus far. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss the posters. However, I'm not crazy about the primary image, either. Is there a more illustrative image for the series? I wish they had something like the artwork seen at The Transformers (IDW Publishing) but live action and all villains around Spidey. Back to the posters, I'm thinking about reformatting the Plots, but I'm not sure how. Should we stick with using the "main" template, or is there another way to highlight the film titles? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and followed your advice. I'm thinking that instead of the plot, we should have a one-paragraph "lead" describing each film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The serialized plots, especially the third film, which was basically copied from Spider-Man 3 before we scaled back until the film's release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm sort of intending to strip down this film series article, since I don't want to be too redundant with specific film detail. That way, we can focus on the overall reviews, and perhaps some contract information about the director/cast signing for three films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you recommend, then? A paragraph's worth of the story for each film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I remember the animated series, especially with Venom in that role. I do remember the tension because Brock knew Spidey's true identity. Just looking at the critical reaction wikitable, it's clear that they did too much at the end to wrap this up, yet at the same time keep it going. I was thinking about how all the storylines could have been much better on their own. With Sandman, Spider-Man could have used his public influence to encourage treatment for Sandman's daughter, getting Sandman to turn himself in. (Though with his sandy nature, he might need a special prison, and possibly have malicious elements of the government try to figure out how to duplicate his powers.) Harry Osborn, like I mentioned before, could have been like the animated series' Venom, especially if it was set up so that he had nothing to lose (or maybe went berserko like his daddy). I think there should have been a lot more backstory to Eddie Brock to show how corrupt he really was, and to have events that really enrage him and really exhibit that anger through the symbiotic suit. Ah, just stupid daydreaming, anyway. I probably have a more dramatic mindset, but I was thinking that the future films should be more about elements out of Spidey's control. Maybe the presence of Kingpin, who sets up fake crimes to distract Spider-Man while the true crimes take place somewhere else. Maybe that could evolve into the application of Spider Slayers somehow -- they'd be destructive and relentless. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead paragraph, added some overall critical reaction to the film series, and a little bit of genre-focused box office ranking information in prose. I think maybe we could do a third paragraph for critical reaction, and that would be enough to address all the films. Obviously, we also should expand the descriptions for the film subsections/links. Also, is there anything we can do with the "List indicator(s)" box? Re-format it or place it somewhere else? It's creating that unnecessarily blank region. All in all, though, I think we've turned this article into something definitely more respectable. This would definitely be a good launching pad down the road, like if they made Spider-Man 4 after all, we can collect Spider-Man 5 tidbits under a revised Future section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had a pretty good idea to address the "List indicator(s)" box problem. I don't know if this would be too reliant on Spider-Man the first, but we could have a paragraph or two about the contractual obligations of the cast. This would fill in the gap created by the box. I'll have to dig up some citations to help out with that, but it seems possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I might want to do Batman film series and Superman film series down the road... then we could smite Canceled Superman films in a most satisfactory manner. We could also provide information about the various failed Batman projects, like Batman Triumphant and Year One. But hey, one thing at a time, right? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I started film series guides for Batman and Superman. You're invited to help, but don't worry, you don't have to get involved if you don't want to. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I request that Rosemary Harris as Aunt May be moved up the cast list over most of the Daily Bugle staff. I can't do it as I'd muck up the table. Alientraveller 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--PhantomS 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

E.T.

I checked the suggestions page and it seems to only welcome new articles. How long before I should nominate it, just in case the FAC is successful? Alientraveller 16:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for all your work so far. I've addressed many of your concerns on the talk page. As for MacNaughton becoming unofficially cast, well, I'm not sure how to describe it, but the fact he auditioned, and then kept becoming called back to work with boys auditioning for Elliott, it was quite amusing watching the documentary, as I got the impression that Spielberg probably forgot to tell him he had the part. Alientraveller 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He was discussing it in an interview: you know, 20 years later, he's got dreadlocks and rose-tinted memories of his only well-known film... Alientraveller 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited it with a more neutral stance: I'm a little bit of an assumer at times. Alientraveller 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, looking at the article a bit I think readers can generally assume what E.T. looks like: its hand is in the poster, its head is in that religion pic and the size of him is visible in the moon bike photo. Alientraveller 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thomas' audition is on the DVD, but I do not have PowerDVD. Do you have the DVD? Whether or not you do, I don't think it's necessary given we already have an image: we don't have to give in fully to a copyright Spartan. Alientraveller 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

She shoulda Said No FAC

Hi, I just wondered if you'd take another look at your comments - more commentary has come through since your last response, and I'm not sure if you're still watching. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal ball

You're definitely on the right track. We can successfully implement this guideline by merging your Future films and reference guidelines into a new Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film-related articles) guideline. A film article that doesn't meet the guideline for an Upcoming film or an Unfinished film should be deleted or redirected. WP:CRYSTAL isn't going to fully apply in many cases, which is why I also refered to WP:CFORK. Since we already have a Spider-Man film series article that covers the specualtive and unconfirmed Spider-Man 4, WP:CFORK takes precedent. We can see that Spider Man 4 was created at 14:51, 9 May 2007 whereas the Spider-Man series article was created on 02:04, 14 November 2006. If SM4 does not meet the greenlight threshold, and a more appropriate article exists (SMS) a merge and redirect should occur. Your new guideline could take this into account. —Viriditas | Talk 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: is there a central repository for the guidelines you and Erik are working on? I would like to edit in one location. Should we create a subpage in the film project hierarchy? —Viriditas | Talk 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Film series revisited

I've put in a bit of work for the Batman film series article. I need to dig around for more information on Year One -- I can do that using Comics2Film or Access World News. I found Tim Burton: Interviews on Google Books that explains the background with Warner Bros.'s feature film rights to the superhero. Might be more books out there; online sources may be doubtful, considering how long ago it was. I just want to trace the production history up to Hamm's script being used, but I won't get into actual detail about the film Batman. This article would be good to use for whatever follows The Dark Knight (depending on the outcome of SM4). Looking back at The Dark Knight when it was Untitled Batman Begins sequel, it was probably created way too early, considering all the rumors that were on the article. Anyway, I have a couple of questions for the series article -- should we mention the 1966 Batman film? It seems like it was a film adaptation of the TV series and not really part of this current no-direct-source-material run. Also, should we have part of the character list available at all? I created a light table just to identify the Batman roles, since that would be the most important. Another question: How should the sections be sorted? Should we mention the first four films, delve into the failed projects, then mention the two Nolan films? Or should we just mention all the successful films, then follow up with the failed project section? If you see anything else that needs addressing, let me know. I will probably move it to Batman film series tomorrow -- which reminds me, is the name ok? Should it say live action? I know there are some animated "films" out there. Or should these be included, too? I'll probably do the Superman film series article in a couple of days, and we can load it up with future information instead of having Superman Returns#Sequel. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 1966 film Batman isn't part of any particular theatrical series, just based on a TV show. It's just that, yeah, it's focusing on the modern day series, even though it's been rebooted. A fictional universe has been created in this theatrical realm. I'm not completely opposed to including the 1966 film, since I imagine there may be dissenters. How about this: We present the 1966 film as the franchise's foray into the theatrical realm? We can use it as a way to set the stage, have some brief history, then follow up with the first attempt in the form of The Batman? I'm not sure about incorporating it for the Reception tables, though... such information would not be miniscule and not as comparable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I realized that all the "modern" films had in common is that they're Warner Bros. films. I don't know if this is something that can be applied to alter the article's title. We can still make mention of the serials and the TV show spin-off in the article, but it'd help shape a focus on this series under the Warner Bros. label. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I duplicated the references where it seemed to be on a new topic -- development, filming, and release/reaction, roughly. Does this work? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason that Joe's been added a couple of times is that he was in a flashback scene (not extended) when he was picking on Peter Parker as a bully. Doesn't really count, anyway... it's stock footage. The other three italicized actors should have had extended flashbacks or hallucinated roles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. I was wondering why he was listed at IMDb's credits. I'd say keep him; no reason to doubt IMDb's listing post-release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 4

Hi there. I moved your comment about merging Spider-Man 4 to Spider-Man film series on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to the top of the May section, per the instruction on the page. I hope that's okay! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at User:Erik/Batman film series, Batman & Robin actually did better than I expected, having heard so much negativity about it. (Even saw it myself as a wee lad, but my taste in film was yet refined back in the day.) I'm not saying that Spider-Man 3 is really comparable, but there's an obvious dip in critical acclaim. I also read a poll (bona fide, actually!) that asked people if they would see Spider-Man films without Raimi or Maguire returning, and a good portion said no. If the studio wants to do a second trilogy, they would need some serious talent to wow audiences. I'm still pissed about Arad convincing Raimi to include Venom -- he wasn't just used badly, he was used up, so there can't be a whole film of Spidey and Venom facing off. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Smallville (Yes)

Yes, because it's the only episode which specifically refers to him as such :)19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the citation exists to show that this character is meant to be Martian Manhunter, as although it was strongly implied, they never said the phrase. He is obviously not known as Martian Manhunter in Smallville (yet) but it remains irrelevant :).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes. The citation exists to prove the character is the Smallville version of Martian Manhunter, but it can be appended to show that he has not assumed that codename in the series yet. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine. I rewrote it similarly but left it your way due to an edit conflict. It now explains the who Phill Morris plays very clearly, the system works! :P~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Young

Apu nominated the main Amanda Young picture for deletion. I've gave my thoughts and I'm going to notify others but if you could help I'd appreciate it. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:GoldenEye

Thanks for your help. I'll see if I can find any more information on the reaction and release side of things, they could do with a bit of expanding. - • The Giant Puffin • 15:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:76.49.47.174

You probably know this but this user was adding birth and death dates to all the TCM characters despite none of them having concrete ages. I reverted all of the edits I could find by this person.--CyberGhostface 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Attacks

I know, but why does it seem people want to take content away for no good reason whatsoever rather than add good content. Why would someone want to remove a citation, and an article desperate for them. Vandals. Nice picture though pal.Whataboutbob 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I'll delete the offensive. Its just odd. It doesnt really appear the work of a blatant vandal, but its just too random, odd! If you see what I added and what was taken away etc by this person, then I think you would agree its odd! Cheers!Whataboutbob 16:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Name

Hey, I was looking around some of my favorite comic book movie pages here and i noticed your name. Bignole, FSU, i'm guessing, if it is, I just want to say cool, becuase I live in Tallahassee, and If it is the same noles you are talking about then I am a big fan! ManofSTEEL2772 May 22 07 9:08 p.m.

Comics

Kool about Seminoles but since I have noticed that you edit some comic book pages, I was wondering something and if you could possibly help me answer it. I have asked this on both the Marvel Sandman and Symbiote disscusion pages. I would truly appreciate it if you visited one of these pages. You don't know how long I have been waiting for an answer! Oh, and I was sarcastic on the symbiote page, nothing out of hand or truly rude I was just saying thanks for the help, even though no one answered it. Anyways Thanks alot! ManofSTEEL2772 9:56 p.m. 22 May 2007

Bring me that horizon

So when are you off to see Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End? Alientraveller 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have loved to have seen it on opening day, but possibly this weekend. I love watching families watching a Disney flick, and the sense of joy as children and adults laugh at Jack's antics or shudder at Davy Jones together. Alientraveller 13:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, still, does that mean you'll spoil yourself trying to keep the plot in control? I'm surprised no one wants to semi-protect the article: I made a request but got turned down. Alientraveller 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah critics, they found Pirates 1 and 2 so complex they made themselves look like right fools compared to every kid on the planet. Alientraveller 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess Liz and Will get married and Jack's destined to be with the Black Pearl whilst being slapped by those two prostitutes in Tortuga. Mind, it was all to emulate Empire Strikes Back. This afternoon I hope to watch the DMC DVD and take my notes. Alientraveller 14:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise how good you were with images, could you crop the IGN logo from the second picture from here? [2] Thanks. Alientraveller 07:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A pointer as to what my request is since you did miss it. As for the Pirates budget, I understand the combined budget was $400 million according to Empire, but no quote, so oh well. Alientraveller 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean DMC had a longer shoot than AWE, which was shoot mostly in America, so really, who knows: it's a huge operation as it is: who can say what each LOTR film cost since New Line financed it as a single $300 million flick? As for the pic, well it's the DVD for anyone to capture, so can't you crop out the trademark, hidden within the black bars? Alientraveller 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if ever in doubt, just check the history part of your talk page to verify where new messages are. Alientraveller 19:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I do have the DVD but I don't have PowerDVD to capture an image. Anyway, AWE's plot has been cleaned-up by me: further proof critics were ninnies for finding the plot complex. Alientraveller 17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well what do you know? I'm rewriting Jack Sparrow in my sandbox! You're as welcome to copyedit and question what I've done as much as you wish! Much easier than Jason Voorhees. Why do you like Jason btw? Are you of the opinion of him as a vigilante against irresponsible teens? Alientraveller 12:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Peter Jackson quantum: it's so over-the-top it's funny, not scary. Mind, I can't stomach gore, Itchy and Scratchy is the level I can't go to. Alientraveller 12:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm basically done, feel free to copyedit like hell before I replace the current article with my version. Afterwards, I'll nominate it for GA and get a peer review before FAC later on. Maybe July 2008, when I first saw Johnny Depp walk off the Jolly Mon and had me completely bowled over by his walk. Man, I love anniversaries. Alientraveller 18:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Got a date for AWE yet? Anyway, I transferred my sandbox into the article and have nominated it for GA. Alientraveller 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Superman project

We have to get around the Superman logo copyright, yes? As long as they don't complain that it looks too much like the original logo from 1938. >:) Baseball Bugs 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I know, the owners of "Superman" have always guarded their copyrights closely. The generic 'S' is probably as good as it gets without seeking permission. Baseball Bugs 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that little logo, given that it's in the public domain (which I wonder about), would be good enough to convey the message. Baseball Bugs 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, even though it's a little fuzzy, I like the cartoon frame better than the generic 'S'. Nice job with the generic 'S', though. Keep it around in case some copyright watchdog yelps about the cartoon frame, even if it is in commons area and supposedly has passed copyright clearance, Clarence. :) Baseball Bugs 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I get a chuckle when I see the wording of wikipedia projects, "an attempt to..." something-or-other. The word "attempt" is equivalent to "try". In the words of Yoda, "There is no 'try'. Do, or do not." :) Baseball Bugs 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• If I were writing it, I would say "the purpose of such-and-such project is to..." instead of "such-and-such project is an attempt to...". Or such-and-such. Baseball Bugs 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Except I would say "the purpose of this project", since the name of the project is stated in the previous sentence. But I like the decisiveness. Superman is not wishy-washy. He's a man of action... do-or-die... and all that sort of thing. Yoda would approve. :) Baseball Bugs 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Professor Hamilton

Is there a reason you removed all of the content from Talk:Professor Hamilton? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright... I knew it wasn't vandalism, but I had to make sure. Good luck editing. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pilot

Wow! Just the other day I was thinking that the pilot should be the other thing to work on. It is really really great. When you transfer the info over you should nominate at the FAC when you think it is ready. I can't really think of much to add; though perhaps it is worthy to mention that

• the scarecrow scene became somewhat of a symbol of the show and was used for posters/DVD season one.
• I did some searching, and found [3],[4] which may help with the debut/ratings aspect of the reception section.
• Maybe mention that the pilot and (ep 2 I think) are available on their own DVD?

Looks really great. Good work Bignole! Can't wait to see it complete! Also, could you have a quick look at the lead of the Aquman page (it seems to be a little jumbled with the filming - and also links things twice and stuff like that?) Davey4 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The changes to the lead are good, thanks for fixing it up. The pilot (Smallville) page is looking great. You could maybe also add that it was nominated for one other Emmy as well as the one it won. It was nominated/won a few other things as well.[5](search "pilot" to see where it shows up). Great job so far! Davey4 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

Dude, this looks like the teaser, and that's definitely not the Joker that was in the viral marketing campaign... holy god, was it really all just a hoax?! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind; I had some suspicions, especially with the scene of Mr. Dent being similar to Thank You for Smoking, and what potentially seemed to be stock footage of the film. Found the proof here. Damned fakers! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

While it look s good to me, I think your best option would be to discuss the matter further on the talk page of the article in question. These are major changes, and people should have the chance to comment on them. Tompw (talk) (review) 08:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Spiderman 3

Thanks for the pointer on Spiderman 3 - I was wrong to remove the brief synopsis from the lead para. Regards, --Oscarthecat 11:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Various

Gosh I feel like Jonah Jameson. Can you chip in at Toy Story 3 regarding someone who's trying to defend speculation as if he's putting two and two together? Btw, did you miss my Pirates 1 picture request? Alientraveller 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your question at Portal talk:Dinosaurs

I've answered there - however, until that time JP does actually have a couple of links on the portal page, so it hasn't been forgotten. Regards, Spawn Man 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Spidey 2

Two down, one to go... I'll be busy with Pirates 1 and primarily 2, how's it going with Spidey 2's critical reaction. I hope you may have time in between Smallville. If not, I'll add it to my backlog. Alientraveller 11:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, and it follows 1 well. I'd add in some stuff myself, because overall I think the film mostly recieved praise over its villain (part of my belief stories are only as good as their baddies). Alientraveller 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I pasted it in, and I shall be molding the article to GA, now that I'm more or less done with rewriting Jack Sparrow, bar parodies. How ironic to parody a parody of Keith Richards... Alientraveller 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re; Smallville (multi episode thingy)

Caught it before you said anything. Check out my recent edit. I think its helpful. Like I said in my (whatever the little comment thingy at the bottom of the page is called), I jumped the gun, and I'm way too tired to be wiki-ing. And if you don't like my rearranging, revert please. It won't hurt my feelings any.

--trlkly

Well, I read what you said after I finished posting. (Bad move, I know). I agree with what you said in general, but I haven't slept in 24 hours, and I'm too tired to attempt a critical assessment (not that there's necessarily annythitng to be critical about). I'll comment later on the article's talk page.

I do pose one thought, though. Stargate actually has its telescript posted online, in what looks to be the original format (as scanned PDFs). So it seems that the copyright owners really don't care, to me (at least, for that show).

--trlkly

Good point about the wiki plot policy. I wasn't aware of that policy until I read your comments that (originally) came after mine. I just didn't like the word "stealing", and wanted to point out why I didn't think it applied. But definitely something needs to be done (about SG), since it's against policy. I think I was (in my sleepless stupor) afraid that you might nominate the Stargate pages for deletion (after reading that huge debaucle about QZ) without letting the people there improve them. But that's against the deletion policy, right (try to fix some other way before deleting)?

Anyways, I'll read up on the appropriate policies after I look at your proposal for Smallville. Who knows, maybe your proposal would go over well in the SG-1 cirlclea. It is a very new project (no comments on talk pages).

Well I hate that entertainment articles are less valued on wiki. I've always seen wikipedia as a place for more casual research. And when it comes to casual research, it's better to have articles that the public is interested in. Highly accademic articles also have their place, but they currently only serve as a starting place for more accademic research. Since wikipedia is a tertiary source, a researcher must verify its information actually comes from the sources it cites. At least, no professor I've ever had will accept wiki as a valid source.

--trlkly 00:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I was pretty much saying the same thing. I guezs I should have said that wiki's also for casual research. I just think wiki's place as a casual research repository is just as important as its place as an accademic encyclopedia.

But entertainment articles have their place in serious research, too. Most encyclopedias include articles on fictional works. They just don't have many because they are limited by their paper medium. Wiki isn't.

The Descent

Hi Bignole, I don't want to edit war over the cast on article on The Descent. But my point is that if user comes to WP for quick info on cast it is much easier if he sees it right away in TOC without reading plot etc. Also you don't want to read the plot if you haven't seen the movie yet... It doesn't harm to have that subsection there. Anyone can skip it without trouble of scrolling through long text or something. I also prefer to see spoiler warning even when useless for most users it is better to warn especially if all details are revealed. Thank you.--Pethr 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Internship

You probably saw my message to Alientraveller about the internship. I'm pretty busy all day, and the commute is pretty rough. I don't get back to the apartment until 7 PM, and the evening whizzes by with dinner, hanging with other interns, and TV. I'll be around enough to update future film stuff and fight vandals, just not enough for tackling any of my projects. Just giving you the heads up on that. Maybe the weekend will be easier -- or it could be the other way. We'll see. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's a fairly important internship that helps improve my resume. I'm working for a Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company's IT department (in line with my major), so I want to make sure I do an excellent job for both the experience and the future reference. The town where I reside isn't very big, but I will probably do road trips on the weekends to do stuff in the surrounding area. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... right now, I just hate the commute, but I have a backlog of New Yorker magazines I can read (been getting them all school year but never got around to reading them). I'm still learning the ropes and setting up accounts, as the place is really structured. I should be doing stuff by next week, and we'll see if I like it or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding sig to infobox

I am running itno some problems as to how to add a signature to an infobox of an article who belongs to the sig. It doesn't seem to want to take/display the sig. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC) )]] 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the infobox template needs to be replaced with something more malleable. Any ideas? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A small problem

They tried to place it in the "Infobox Person" template, but a signature field didn't exist for the template. I discovered that the "President" infobox did have a signature field. So, I asked Arcayne if he wanted me to create a new template for the "First Lady". Then it became clear that most of the stuff that would go there was stuff already in the "Person" template, with the only things missing being "Signature". When I tried to just create the sig field in the "Person" template, it wouldn't take. It was exactly from the other templates, but for some reason nothing would register in the field.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I could see if I could add it myself, but I believe Template:Infobox Officeholder is a better template. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically that is the "President" template, they've combined all political position templates into the one. They could use the generic "Officeholder", but that's a lot of blank spaces the general template holds. It isn't like they have a "First Lady" section, like their "Ambassador" or "Senator" sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? Wouldn't your proposed template give the same result? -- tariqabjotu 01:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

None, as far as I can tell, but I thought there was some unwritten (or possibly written) rule that you shouldn't remove blank spots from an infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's news to me. -- tariqabjotu 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BOF

Yeah, I was surprised to see all this anger toward me. I don't even have anything against BOF -- I even check it out once in a while, but as an editor, I don't consider it as an attributable source. Like you've said, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. There's no hate involved; it's a matter of playing by the rules. I wouldn't mind excluding IMDb links before a film's release, in addition to SHH as an external link. They're right about SHH reporting a lot of rumors, even though we don't link to these rumors. (We should address Rory's First Kiss again, by the way.) It's just that IMDb and SHH links have been such staples in film articles. Since BOF is more film-specific, it's easier to evaluate its merits as an external link. Would you oppose an interview at BOF if one ever came up for the film? I think my so-called "beef" is more about the lack of professionally backed reports. It's just not attributable to take an e-mail of a fan reporting filming taking place in a certain part of Chicago and use it as a source. I might e-mail Jett and see if I can diffuse the situation before it escalates. I'll bring up a discussion on the talk page about the external links. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to have BOF as an external link because the supplementary content of external links should be attributable. That's why I just removed SHH. We've cited SHH's information such as interviews and set visits, but we don't include the mailed-in information they post. Right now, after reviewing SHH, there is not sufficient supplementary content there besides what already exists on the Wikipedia article at this stage in production. I'm sure that when the film comes out, we can restore SHH, which will be pulling in headlines about the film, most that probably won't be used. My concern with BOF right now is that there is a campaign to restore it as a link by people involved with that site -- obviously not a neutral approach. It needs to be evaluated by objective editors; I thought that was what we tried to do, but perhaps editors not involved with this film article could evaluate BOF. Furthermore, the founder proclaims his site to be the biggest Batman fan site on the Internet. It'd be nice to see some evidence to back that claim. I don't know of any other fan sites right now, but if there are some and people want to include theirs, we should be able to present why BOF is worthy enough to include as an external link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I just registered as "Erik the Bad Guy" to use BOF forums. Wish I could share my password; you'd get a kick out of it (a little light-hearted rip on BOF). Hopefully I can post a comment to try to explain the approach we're taking. These blanket statements bother me -- "This is why Wikipedia sucks!" et cetera. We put together an extremely good article for Spider-Man 3, and I have no doubt we'll do that for The Dark Knight. Apparently, I have to apply one more time to get my account approved to make any comments, so we'll see if Jett will censor me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was in BOF's chat for a couple of hours today, having some good old-fashioned movie talk. I've also posted a response in the anti-Wikipedia thread at BOF. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We'll see how Jett responds. There were two people in that thread who I talked to in the chat room, and I think I showed them that I wasn't as evil as initially portrayed. It was really odd to get such criticism directed at me. I don't take it personally, but I suppose I'm following up on this to see if I can clear up the issue. (Something to do on a lazy afteroon, you know?) We'll see they can change their tune toward me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the primary issue is that this is a well-established community, and since the members are very much a part of it, it's hard for them to understand how a new user may perceive the website. This is especially true when it comes to citing similar sites on Wikipedia. When I first saw BOF last summer, my impression was not that positive. The layout was not professionally done like IGN, so it would be easy for a visitor to perceive the site as one of questionable credibility. I think that the case with Casino Royale with a couple of editors questioning the use of fan sites for citations is something to look out for, which is why BOF may be more questionable than SHH, since it is totally focused on this film, lacking neutrality in its coverage. Since it's their site, it's hard for them to see that we're not giving other sites like Latino Review special treatment; we cite as little as we can from movie sites that "report" information.

I've been extended the welcome mat, obviously, but I don't agree with what Gregg said. He applauded Jett for bringing me in, when I was actually the one who took initiative, created an account, and shared my spiel. Maybe he meant granting me permission to post on the forum... oh, well. I don't plan to say, "Excuse me, but I came here of my own accord. I still don't know if the founder is still pissy toward me or not." Wouldn't help things, ya know? I did an initial search of BOF in the mainstream, but I didn't find too much. I think if we did include it, we should have its reputation backed by sources. That way, if TDK is ever reviewed and BOF is called into question, then we can point to the talk page section and say, "We found several mainstream sources noting the site's prominence." It'll help keep any other fan sites off the External links section, too, so owners of these sites can't say, "Hey, BOF is on it, why can't I include my fan site?" —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm not getting too much feedback about outside, objective sources like USA Today about BOF They have these quotes commending the website that come from the website itself. The quotes don't seem to stand up to criticism. It's circuitous logic. In order to recognize BOF's credibility with their information, we are using their information to establish that. I mean, the site also has a counter for how many visitors it's seen, but it seems that it could be criticized, being the primary source. What do you think is the appropriate level of standards to establish BOF as a reputable fan site? I haven't had much time looking for BOF mentions in the mainstream media, but I was hoping that the BOF folks would help out with outside sources. I guess it's like what you said; it's hard to explain the rules of the system in which we work in such succinct terms. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's more for the forum than the site itself. You can see the statistics here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, look here! I could've been linked to that in the first place. Some links are out of date, though, so I'll find some time later tonight to see if I can find where the pages have been archived. These should be good enough to reflect the site's notability, at least as an external link. Still not sure about treating as a source, though... I don't have issue with information coming from the "lion's mouth", but I still hesitate to take reports through Jett's contacts (the ones not treated as rumor) as verifiable. It's just that, after seeing criticism of fan sites on Casino Royale, I'm sure BOF would come under fire if we got the TDK article reviewed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, when I get several sites gathered, I'll present the evidence on TDK's talk page so we can always point to it for notability if BOF itself is criticized or if someone wants to add their own TDK fan site. I don't think that they would be happy that we'd keep citing SHH, even though the only things we really actually cite from them are interviews and set visits and as chronological marks when there is promotional information. Eh, I'll look around for sources acknowledging SHH's credibility just in case, to see how it would compare. It's pretty much a staple external link for superhero films, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

Well, the main problem with trying to discuss is that is doesn't happen often. I placed messages on these episode lists and only the bold ones were responded to by people that have to do with the episodes (An I.P. randomly commented on a bunch of them). And these are ones that are likely to be popular without people becoming to possessive. I like the idea of discussion, but most just ignore it anyways (as summed up in my latest pump post). All other methods are really going to get the same result (at least for me). If I bothered to propose seasons on the reverted ones, people still won't want "their hard work" to be cut down (even though the work is often a huge summary of the whole episode). Well, anyways, thanks for the encouragement. TTN 21:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's really that people want to stall this by picking at my editing rather than actually have to find sources. The other people are just way too stuck on the whole discussion thing. It is much easier and it makes much more sense to discuss when necessary. We don't need to go by the book. But still people are going to push for it, and even if I do place discussions and act as nice as a little kitten, they'll find a new reason to complain. TTN 19:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So do you think it is possible to build up WP:EPISODE enough to just allow them to be nuked? I mean we have WP:V, WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and a few points of WP:NOT backing the removals anyways. There must be a way to use those to bulk it up. TTN 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, my words weren't plagiarized from any website, sir. I respect Kryptonsite too much for that and i meant what i said. Plus, that was my page, and if any changes needed to be made, u should have sent me a message personally to tell me to revise my page. So, u take ur fancy talk about whatever you were talking about, cuz ur a hypocrite. u tell others to not steal, but u stole a template, GENIUS!

Jurassic Park IV

Actually I would like to apoligies, I was actually referring to User:Alansohn and what he said, I got confused about who wrote what in all that lenghy writting,because he was the one who had the opinion that double jeopardy was a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus.And I didn't realize it was nessesary to merge it when since it is still an unverified film, I thought a footnote in Jurassic Park franchise would do,unless that is also merger Rodrigue 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what it is... it's not like if people type Jurassic Park IV, they won't get anything. They'll be redirected appropriately, and the location will help show that it's not a guaranteed film. It seems to have worked for Spider-Man 4. I'm going to bed, though... good luck if the dissenter persists. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we merge Jurassic Park IV when the AfD is done? The Keep votes seem to be about keeping the content, not the article's location. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

You weren't amused? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought it funny, when viewed alongside some of the other tripe being presented. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I had not really weighed in on the merge issue, as I tend to favor the style represented by the Dr. Who episodes: 1. from the main article 2. to the main list of seasons (the English call them 'serials'), and finally 3. to the individual episodes, like this, for example.

I understand that this takes a lot of work, and it happens from the dedicated worker bees via the wikiproject Dr. Who. As a user, I simply love reading about the episodes, and as an editor can appreciate the level of oversight and detail that goes into it working. I wouldn't necessarily prefer a merging that moves away from this particular style. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I realize that suggesting merging the article would have made it easier, but I figured most of the info was just speculation so it wouldn't really be merging to have a sentence or two about it in Jurassic Park franchise.But the result of the AFD can also be merge and redirect if necessary, it does not need to be closed and then suggested for merging, now that the AFD is started anyway. Rodrigue 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

You ever thought that people are learning to use modern gizmos before they even master etiquette these days? Maybe new editors have to have a politeness test before being allowed to edit. Tis' the price we pay for a modern society's free encyclopedia. Alientraveller 17:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bignole Brother is Watching

Thanks for fixing the new mcleod image. I tried to place it in the other articles the old gif was in, but one was a frame, and the pic showed up gi-normous. lol. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

I do agree with that format of keeping episode information complied like that, and adding any production notes, however one small thing that needs to be adressed depends on that paticular shows availibity of production credits.

Also just so you know adding in available production credits for the key sections (such as writer, director, producer etc.) for a show was one of my original ideas to solving this problem. But one thing I definity will support is that the Episode articles do need to change in order to prevent this from happening a second time. As such I would personally make sure that the shows I work with will have a simple summary and that I would moniter them so no one would foolishly recreate an episode article again to help prevent this site from becoming like TV.com. -Adv193 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than a plot summary there should be a simple list of production crew that is comprised of just the more noteable people such as the writer or storyboard as well as the people that directed the episode why secondary position such as make-up artists would not be noteable. -Adv193 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The least amount of noteable people possible. Also there are currently several shows that need to have episode lists with wikitables set up. If I had the skills to properly set up a wikitable I would have done so already. It is like I said, most shows do not need episode articles but rather the simple information in an episode page. -Adv193 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not wait for a bit and see how this situation turns out also I would like to reveal how I first got involved in this. It happened when I was going to an episode summary for the anime Fullmetal Alchemist and after learning what happened when TNN redirected it and I looked into the episode credits on my DVD for seeing about listing Japanese as well as English credits and I found some for both on a few key roles. My point is that not all TV episodes will list all the credits which is why only the main production staff and even the original air date would be more noteable for an episode list since I was trying to focus on adding real world context at the time. -Adv193 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see an episode list divided into many pages other than a regular TV show check out the anime Naruto at List of Naruto episodes, but again this idea is only meant for larger shows. -Adv193 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AN/I Image

yes. It describes a major hypocrisy in the eyes of the cotributor, who notes that cherubs giving hand jobs is classic art, and that lolicon isn't classic, just porn. I restored the image so as to examine where Wikipedia sets the line. Please revert it back in, Nole. I don't mention it, in the 'Real Life/internet' separation, but I work in an art history related capacity, to be vague. The 'line' and where it goes is important for all of Wikipedia. I had hoped to post a big response, but in the edit conflict with yoru re-removal, i lost my comment. I'll rebuild it, but please restore the image. ThuranX 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I see that now. Unfortunately, asking about wider policy applications of the dichotomy resulted in admins getting on my nuts, so whatever. Surprised to see you over on AN/I though, instead of a comics page, LOL. ThuranX 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Road to Perdition

I've revised the article heavily today (had free time on my hands). I'm not done; got some more references to go and some more themes to explore. I feel like I'm getting too immersed into the material, though, to really realize what's missing. Can you take a look at it and see if there's anything that seems out of place, besides the obvious (like disconnected lines in the Cast section)? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am considering keeping "Filming" and "Cinematography" separate because while "Filming" would be a staple subsection, "Cinematography" should exist as a stand-alone section based on its prominence (with the cinematographer winning awards for it). I am trying to consider what to do with the Cast and characters section -- I don't feel like giving it the franchise treatment, but there are too many characters to just merge into the Plot section. Should I merge "Casting" details into "Cast and characters", like what Alientraveller did for Jurassic Park? I would probably not seek excessive character detail for each character.

Also, to my knowledge, Road to Perdition is the only DVD that has audio commentary with English subtitles. I haven't seen the film in a while, so I will probably incorporate a bit of information from that commentary and the HBO "Making of" documentary when I get my hands on the DVD. I will try to expand some other subsections, like "Photography", which isn't really thematic, but more of a placeholder section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a really good film; I'd rate it 4/5, maybe 4.5/5. (Sorry, I do the 5-star system in my head 'cause I use Netflix.) When I saw it, there were a lot of great moments to witness. It should be even better when I see it again in the near future, being aware of all the techniques used. I'm considering doing American Beauty, too, and maybe Forrest Gump... too many great films that could use the attention! I think that I will use the strategy of researching as much as possible at one interval, then later, take advantage of the available references, then even later, re-evaluate the references to ensure that they've been completely incorporated into the article. Have you seen The Descent, by the way? I was pretty impressed with the way it was directed, especially compared to Neil Marshall's lower-budget Dog Soldiers. I'm looking forward to his Doomsday more now as a result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- it'd be a nice gig to work on film articles all day on Wikipedia. :) My dad, aware of my wiki-editing, keeps trying to suggest ways to incorporate my wiki-skills into the real world, since Wikipedia credentials aren't really credentials. It's kind of odd, looking back, I never would have thought that I'd be using Wikipedia. I always saw it as a mess (not that it isn't), but it provides great tools to have a research-style hobby and to publicize it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I have a similar "critical eye" now in the real world. I take most bits of conventional wisdom with a grain of salt. I've gotten chain e-mails describing something amazing, and when I research it (Snopes is a good start), I find most of it to be false. I have to admire people who can pull together multiple references for a Wikipedia article on a broad topic, especially geographical locations. Film articles are relatively limited, categorized as projects of which their productions are not always highlighted, but the onscreen results themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would not mind giving film articles on Wikipedia more respect, especially new ones. A lot of articles on well-known films were created years after the film already came out, so it takes a serious contributor to improve one (like Alientraveller with Jurassic Park, E.T., et cetera). I'm somewhat drifting away from standard-fare superhero films briefly and considering attempting FA-level contributions to a variety of genres. Fight Club was a start -- The Fountain, being little known, not so much. Hence the other articles I hope to work on. The Shawshank Redemption would probably better received as an FA than Spider-Man 3, you know? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty close to completeness... I have a Critical reaction section to write out (boy, that'll be fun), and I'm hoping to expand more on the themes, especially Water. (If I recall correctly, it should be covered in the captioned audio commentary, so I need to get my hands on the movie.) Do you have any further suggestions based on what's there so far? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Set sail

Well I got Jack Sparrow to GA, I'm really proud of my first fictional character article. Anyway, I hope you enjoy At World's End, it's only complex if you go to the toilet mind, and it's interestingly more grotesque. Alientraveller 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny coincidence; I'm going to see At World's End tonight, too -- with captioning, of course. Guess we'll see how it goes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Two, 47, + 20... I saw it with an intermission. Alientraveller 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I prefer AWE over DMC but I do love COTBP: perfect ghost story, even if I am a fan of extended universes. Anyway, Spider-Man 2 is in GAC right now. Alientraveller 09:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode etc

Yes. Check out User:Angie Y.'s contributions. And yes, Yes Minister's a British programme, and one of the funniest. Similar era to Monty Python. Gwinva 16:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I tell a lie... it's a few years later. Gwinva 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Oh dear...does that make me old? Let me say I watched the later ones first time round... :) Gwinva 17:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

One season of episodes that need to be evaluated is from the series 24 with their season 1 section. All those episodes have is plot summaries and crew info, but the main problem is that most of the summaries are minor which can be moved to a wikitable here is a link to that season so you can evaluate it and see if we can move it a wiki-table. -Adv193 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to start a spying game, further to our discussion above, check out User talk:Dposse#Episode pages A shame people's energies can't be directed towards establishing consensus. Life's a bit hectic for me over the next few days, so if I say little it's not because I've abandoned everyone... but it seems that there's a number of people all keen to get it sorted, so hopefully we'll see some progress. Gwinva 09:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wish to help

Hello. I have been watching the discussion on WP:EPISODE. It seems that you have reached some kind of conclusion. I was just wondering what will happen now, since I - after having seen the discussion - wish to help in improving the episode articles/list of episodes articles on Wikipedia. However, I don't know if I should wait until you have reached a consensus. Basically, I was wondering, what will happen now, and would it be wise to start improving episode/list of episode articles now?

PS: I am not sure if I have acquainted myself properly with the situation so I may have understood the situation wrong. =) Michae2109 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the advice and for the links. It's great that you are working on a new season format page, I think it will be perfect for editors (myself included) who cannot find enough sources for separate episode articles on their favourite shows, but who have enough information for a season article. You and several others are also doing a great job in keeping the discussion on track. =) Michae2109 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(Since this section is related...) What is your take on the Lost episode articles? They always seemed to me to be fancruft, and I wasn't sure how they got the ruling that episode articles were OK to have. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man film series

I've gone ahead and merged the Cannon Films article into the film series article. What do you think could be done to expand the film series article some more to gain some recognition as a GA? I feel that it's still a little underdeveloped at the moment. I was considering a "Cast and crew" section where the contracts for the trilogy can be discussed. For example, Maguire and Dunst were contracted for three, I believe, but Raimi only signed on for one film at the beginning. We can also write about the change of the writers throughout the series, but I don't want to be too redundant based on what's in the existing film articles. Any ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What about information about the director's contract and the writers throughout the series? Maybe the visual effects supervisors, since they're fairly relevant to the action? Overall awards and nominations? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of film series, I'm not sure how necessary Jurassic Park franchise is, considering that Jurassic Park video games already exists, and there's not that much else to cover besides the two books and toys. I'm thinking about recommending it to be moved to Jurassic Park film series and have a similar format to the Spider-Man one. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratatouille images

Many of the images were uploaded by Pixar is, a rather enthusiastic Pixar fan that posts a lot of items without proper WP attribution. Feel free to yank them as you see fit. (although I'm sure they'll be re-uploaded, but we can help monitor those with you). SpikeJones 16:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Want some fun with images? Check out Cars (film). SpikeJones 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rolling out

Pfff, like a lot of songs it's an uneasy fight between lyrics and music. Anyway, (Erik might want to chip in given his interest in development hell) I can't actually believe Transformers has been made. When I first heard of it, I got scared, it would probably spend 19 years in hell. It's a dream come true: I recall when X-Men was released, Harry Potter and Spider-Man were coming, one of my first wonderings was when Transformers would be filmed. And how? Yeah, Lord of the Rings broke the digital acting barrier, although I do wonder would it have been awesome if they would do it ala Avatar or Tintin? Maybe the sequels. Alientraveller 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, a true Transfan like me expected them to spent the first hour on Earth, and then gone into outer space, like how Star Wars started more or less in the Tatooine system. But I do like the disaster film approach: it's not G1, but if I wanted realistic G1 I already got that in the IDW comics. I really do like the designs: Megatron and Starscream caught me off guard but the personality counts really. I can't wait for the DVD: I want to know everything about who were in the cast from time to time. A helluva lot more complex than replacing Vulture with Venom in Spidey 3. Alientraveller 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is understandable as to when a fan feels a little upset that something they love is gone, but putting flames on Prime (which I have my own theory on regarding colour moving about during transformation of pieces) isn't the same as making Harry Potter non-scarred or non-speccy. I look forward to writing down all the reviews: there used by a time when I cared about general consensus and Wikipedia punched that out of me. Alientraveller 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 Trivia

Just curious who you eliminated the section I added for Trivia. I realize it was only one blip below that, was there any other reason you removed it? Thanks! Chanceinator 22:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI Chanceinator 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Aquaman on YTV

Next time, do like I did and take 5 seconds of your time to find an online TV listing and verify yourself. Also, I don't know how to add this link to make it look decent, but since a reference is important to you, you do the honors: http://entertainment1.sympatico.msn.ca/TV_Guide/TVListings/#%7B%22view%22%3A%22grid%22%2C%22startSec%22%3A1181433600%7D

BTW, I watched it, pretty good in fullscreen, sorry you couldn't watch it in your country. Duhman0009 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey I'm only the guy that corrected the time of play, I'm not the original poster. Go tell it to that guy that added the info in the first place. But for what it's worth, thanks for posting the link. Duhman0009 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Wasn't aware it passed. Alientraveller 13:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

just because

you hate trivia sections doesnt mean they dont belong in the articles im putting it to a vote on the talk page.TheManWhoLaughs 15:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lord, I just don't understand why we have to put up with people who clearly can't read these days. Why do I always find myself posting WP:SPOILER, WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:AVTRIVIA? There's satisfaction at least in making great articles though. Alientraveller 18:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good news so I don't lose faith in IPs/newcomers as a whole. Alientraveller 18:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Clever film hybrid discussion titles

Yeah, they look like they'd be good films. I saw the 30 Days of Night director's Hard Candy, which was a hell of a disturbing film. No idea of the guy's credentials for The Invasion, but the studio's preference for more action in the film makes me concerned. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford got the same kind of treatment, too. For the aforementioned trailers, I hope they don't have any cliché moments in general cinema and in respect to their genre. Did you see the I Am Legend teaser? It seemed interesting, but the fact they showed nothing in it makes me think that audiences won't be that interested. I was also in New York last night and saw Ocean's Thirteen, which I enjoyed a lot... probably as good as Eleven. (Wasn't that crazy about Twelve, like most people.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's an excellent film. Bruno Ganz is a scarily-sympathetic Hitler. And on to something less heavy. Apart from Transformers, I'm off to see the following: Rise of the Silver Surfer, The Simpsons Movie and Ratatouille. Simpsons' presence this summer almost seems rude, but better late than never.

It's gonna make $1 billion! Alientraveller 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not usually a fan of the trailers unless they show something really cool. For example, the first teaser for Rise of the Silver Surfer had this really cool part where they had intervals of the Silver Surfer choke-lifting the Human Torch before dropping him to Earth, which was skipped in succeeding trailers and TV spots. Not to mention that they can show too much... I've stopped watching Transformers media, but when I was walking out of Ocean's Thirteen the other day, there was a TV spot that was showing a ridiculous amount of bot action (haha) and I had to avert my eyes.

As for Ocean's Twelve, I think it was running too high on its amount of star power. Thirteen is better because the focus is more on the story, and the characters are more in-universe. It's just planned out better, basically. As for Hard Candy, I don't remember how I wound up watching it, but since I went into it knowing nothing, it was a heck of a ride. Another good older-person-playing-young-character film off the top of my head is Brick, with Levitt as a high school student in a noir-ish environment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so looking forward to Simpsons, and the DVD is gonna be ger-rate! Honestly, I wanna waft through every deleted scene. Btw, Megatron stomps Jazz in the trailer. But I can't wait to hear Weaving's voice. We've not seen anything of Brawl or Ratchet either. Alientraveller 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Megs looks like he has a tan and Jazz is all-bluey. I'm confused why Jazz is the small one: why not make Bumblebee the Pontiac? Oh wait, Sam wouldn't be able to buy him though. Funny ol' thing moviemaking. Alientraveller 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I just recognized them immediately having spent many a doodle on these new movie characters. I actually find these film characters easy to draw: all that kibble gives them this organic feel. Anyway, I hope a lot of people keep the plot short for GA, as I'll see it after July 27. Sigh, why did Transformers and Simpsons have to come out on the same day? Alientraveller 20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I knew I could count on you. Alientraveller 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis vs. Plot

Whilst I genuinely admire your dedication, I'd like to point out that the only significant difference between 'synopsis' and 'plot' (in the appropriate context) is that 'synopsis' is a summary of the plot, whereas 'plot' would be expected to comprehensively recount the plot in full. It's not that one contains spoilers and another doesn't. Unless you'd like to provide a source, you can consider this is just me trying to stop you wasting your own time. :-) Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your response on my talk page. I see you are quite sure in what you're doing — I'll admit I hadn't examined any of the pages you edited, but had noted your edit summaries and was simply seeking to clarify. However, since you clearly know what you're doing, I'd like to applaud you for it: it's a thankless task but it's one of these minor things that really contributes to a general feel of 'polish' in Wikipedia. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is my point

One could find episode summaries using "real world" sources. One might even be able to find Neilsen ratings or critical reviews (although some of this is nearly fancruft in and of its self). It seems like that would not satisfy TTN. He appears to be making value judgements on the quality of sources. I just see this as very subjective. Ursasapien 04:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue. My primary concern is the episode articles for the TV show LOST. I understand about deriative work, but without a fairly detailed episode by episode plot analysis, there is no way someone could understand the story or the impact of the show. Currently, most of the episodes are sourced and have production or critical review information, but I am concerned that they may be threatened. Ursasapien 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Freddy's Nightmares

I was thinking of doing a episode summary for Freddy's Nightmares simular to my work on Twilight Zone (Nick of Time) do you think that is worth persuing or if it will be deleted flat out? Wikimindless 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It is great to see you working on the Dark Knight page, I haven't seen you active since the we were arguing about Venom on the Spiderman 3 page Wikimindless 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

well, I mean "I" haven't seen you on wikipedia since spiderman 3. I would greatly apreciate if you started up te site html wise and let me just fill in the blanks.

P.S. I have ever episode of The incredible Hulk if you need to finish the site (ex. season 2) Wikimindless 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Big eyes are watching...

Ha... I thought I sensed someone looking at me. Speaking of contributions, I just took a look at my edit history through Interiot's tool. Yikes - embarrassing to note that by far the largest count (double that of Solar System) is for the Jericho main article. (That's not because of any great love for the show - it does have a certain "what if" fascination, but the writing, actings, and production values are weak. Lots and lots of creeping 'cruft, though, to keep one busy on Wikipedia.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I like the work you are doing with the Smallville pages. I think that in situations where single-episode articles are merged or redirected, the Smallville-style "season" pages can help to allay concerns about the loss of individual pages (since they still contain decent plot summaries). I do think we need to work out some issues surrounding the merge-redirect-cleanup plan. I honestly don't think the bulk "blank-redirect" approach is going to cut it, nor will it be well received. However, perhaps we can develop some sort of template along the Smallville model, and consider moving plot summaries into those format articles (with links form the "list of episodes" pages). Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I hadn't noticed your revisions - I was looking at the existing "Season One" page. I've now taken a quick look at your "Season One" revamp. It seems promising - I'm guessing it is still in progress, based on your notes. Some thoughts, if you don't object: I'd prefer a bit more on the plot - it doesn't have to be paragraphs, but it certainly could be larger than what it is now. Perhaps in paragraph format, rather than as a table, since the table feels a bit "heavy" in a standard article. (The colours, on the other hand, work well in the overall "List of" page, which could have tighter one- or two-sentence plot descriptions.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Season pages

Thanks for the reply. I saw the other talk page after I left that message and realized that you were working on it. I just wanted to know what would make a good season page. Hopefully you'll be done with your Smallville one soon so we can have a good example to model articles after. Phydend 15:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty chaotic right now, but I definitely see where you're going with it. It definitely will be better than the current Smallville season pages and more in depth than that Simpsons page. Good job with it so far. Phydend 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that section flows pretty well and fits in with the production aspect that the current article needs. Good job with it so far. Phydend 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Movies

I started ignoring Rise of the Silver Surfer headlines a while ago, but I thought I read that the cloud rumor was just a rumor, and that the director himself said that Galactus would make some kind of appearance in the film. The Silver Surfer seems cool enough to see the film for him, but my expectations are rather low. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Listy hell

Would you happen to know if there is a userbox for people who hate lists of deaths or other stupid occurrences? I'd love to add it to my user page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Have faith in Nolan. He's gonna do the freakin' Joker introduction in IMAX format, for God's sake. How outrageously cool is that going to be!? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as I love the Tumbler, I doubt the Batman wants to tear up the infrastructure of his city by tanking around. A cycle seems to make sense for certain capacities, and I'm sure that Nolan won't make it campy. Judging from the look of the Joker (from that blurry shot in the IMAX press release, at least), I think we're in for a mean dude. (By the way, do you find it odd that there has been zero mainstream mention of the actual Joker picture itself from the so-called viral marketing campaign?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that the actual bike? Because it looks like the old symbol. But I am going to love the idea of a motorbike. How realistic is that? Very. Alientraveller 07:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sopranos AFD

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to remove your comment and replace it with mine. I'm actually not sure how that happpened. The Filmaker 01:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallville music

Hi. Please gain consensus before removing legitimate OOU information. Thanks! (thus I've reverted your edits) Matthew 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure I understood your edit summary, nobody has claimed that Smallville has an album... Matthew 12:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate being your POV, clearly not mine. I consider it OOU information, which is quite useful, non-trivial and frankly helpful. Matthew 12:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Who has two albums? Matthew 12:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has apparently just added that, recently. As it states: "Original song lyrics for a television episode breach copyright. References to featured music should be supported by reliable sources to establish notability. Do not just list music: Wikipedia is not a directory." - a primary source is a reliable source, the episode is the source. Still not seeing how Smallville has two albums as being relevant, though, nobody has said anything about the albums.. Matthew 12:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also you still need to gain consensus for your actions, the guideline clearly doesn't agree with you. Matthew 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken (having not seen Smallville in a while), but music is listed in the credits... which is part of an episode -- thus part of the primary source. I'll check soon, I need to catchup on Smallville. (also remember, you're not entitled to three reverts... that's not the spirit of 3RR) Matthew 12:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, take it easy. I don't want you to start edit warring because of that. No need to. Besides, let's centralize the discussion, for example on my talk page. --Tone 13:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallville comments

Sorry to be slow getting back...I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak as I'm really busy here, but I didn't quite manage to stay away! I had a look at the section. It provides a good overview of the type of stuff they're doing for the programme...not too much fannish detail, but enough to understand the production values and innovative work etc. Interesting too for someone like me, who's never seen the programme. I had to resist the urge to copy-edit it though...(it is your sandbox, after all). If you want me to cast my eye over the prose at some point and tighten it up, I'm happy to do so. I'm offline for the next few days (which will enforce my wikibreak!), but after that I should be fine. I shall expect all to be resolved at WP:TVE when I get back!!! Gwinva 09:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, apologies for the delay. I'll try to take a look through later tonight, when I have a chance to think. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jason vs Carrie"

Having been only a part-time movie-reviewer in college, I would argue that the Friday the 13th series all had themes, most of them about alienation but 7 in particular was about alienation versus hope. The girl had all the potential of becoming as much a monster as Jason, but love and hope helped her to previal in the end. I am pretty sure that writers of film subjects could expound on those themes immensely. Everything has meaning, Big; some of it is specifically interpreted by the individual, but much of it is interpreted more universally. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

About the projectors, you should consider writing an article on that, if there isn't one already. If my not knowing anything about that is any indication, there might be others who also knew nothing about it.

Regarding hte themes section guideline, I don't see the harm in having a guideline for those films that warrant one. If there is only (as you gave for an example) only four sentences or whatnot, then it doesn't meet the criteria. If there is thematic exposition on par with an article like Star Wars or CoM, having a guideline in place would help keep things uniform. At least, that's the way it looks to me right now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, i think that finds us in agreement, right? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, some people do take it far too personally, which is the other side of the spectrum from the folks who treat WP like their own personal toilet paper. Most fall somewhere in the middle. Passion is okay, while obsessiveness or ownership is kinda creepy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Themes

I'm trying to understand this ongoing issue about themes. While I don't have a problem attributing the intended themes of a film, I'm less certain about the so-called unintended themes in films. I just read a Cineaste review of Road to Perdition -- which may not be an appropriate reference thematically -- and the writing just struck me as an elitist review that said several times, "It looks like Mendes tried to be like <some director/cinematographer here>, but doesn't quite pull it off." I just have the notion in the back of my head that there are people who "read too much" into these things. Just the other day, I found an essay about incest in American Beauty... haven't read that yet, but somehow, it doesn't seem accurate to have that kind of analysis in a Themes section. Not to mention that in Fight Club, there's that paragraph spiel in Reception about how women were degraded in the film, when I found that it was quite clear in the references I used that was not the intent. It just seems possible for anyone to present an odd, controversial perspective. (Being a business major these days, I keep tying the reasoning for most people's actions to profit and notoriety.) Would an appropriate criteria be a theme that is recurring among essays about a particular film? I'm sure that the Christian allegory in E.T. would be recurring, but I'm not sure about the examples I provided. Speaking of E.T., I have three PDFs that could help out Alientraveller, but I'm not sure how to get them to him, not to mention the legal restraints. Maybe I can find the time to incorporate what I found into that article... it's his work, though, I want to give him that privilege. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad that the editor didn't broach the issue in a more genial manner. His user page obviously reflects that he seeks serious depth when it comes to literature. I wasn't in total disagreement with him, especially after I had read what I found about incest in American Beauty. I looked up the essay's author, Kathleen Rowe Karlyn, and found what she wrote to be fairly engaging. I understand his perspective, as it was a "mature" one (despite the tone in which it was shared). I was looking at WikiProject Films' list of Featured Articles, and I couldn't help but wonder if some films (Jaws, Dog Day Afternoon, Sunset Boulevard, to name a few) were missing out on appropriately attributable film criticism. I noticed a Themes in Blade Runner article (though badly cited, if at all) and was thinking that the editor wasn't so far off the mark in his proposal. He pointed out a hole in E.T., and I wouldn't be surprised if holes existed with other articles. Admittedly, a lot of film articles are based on "lightweight" research, especially recent ones. What the editor proposed was fairly drastic based on that premise, demanding research that's not immediately available through Google. Obviously, like with the questionable usage of screenshots in some film articles, this kind of perspective would be resisted because a lot of us are accustomed to this traditional approach. The projects that I see ahead of me are American Beauty, Dark City, and The Shawshank Redemption, and I will try to see how much critical depth there are to these films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

last change

Look, I'm not trying to insist that Brock is alive. I'm just trying to explain the possibilities. It's completely open. There's no positive or negative proof that Brock is dead.

Reply

If you don't like being called immature, then you shouldn't threaten people who disagree with your way of thinking. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

last message

It's quite obvious: we don't see his "skeleton". All we see is smoke, dust, and a bit of the symbiote. The fact that a pumpkin bomb blew up IN HARRY'S FACE and only gave him a scar is something you should think about. Now, think about that, and think that a bomb exploded while Eddie was PROTECTED by the symbiote. He obviously couldn't have died. The most likely case was that he dodged out of the way just in time and made his escape wounded.

Ugh...

It's pointless arguing with you...