User talk:Bignole/Archive 11

Ew. I'm sorry to see that you've had to deal with a headcase for the FAC process. The WP:LEAD argument is f-ing old, and to look past Raul's input... well, that's something. I'll run through the article myself in a little bit, but obviously, at first glance, it seems well-structured and well-informed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have like three Smallville discussion sections on your talk page! :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to copy-edit the article later today, but I am busy preparing to go back to school (got home from my internship a couple of weeks ago). Just one quick critique I had of the article, namely its episode "title". Wouldn't it be more appropriate to start off saying, "The pilot of the television series Smallville, which became its first episode..." I ask because it doesn't seem that "Pilot" is an episode title in the truest sense, and the article seems to portray it as such. Maybe you can pipe-link to television pilot somehow? I gotta go through some boxes now, as I'm downsizing from my previous university residence from a four-bedroom house to a two-bedroom apartment, but I'll be back later, hopefully. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's nothing like that. The article really does look good; I just places where I can nitpick, since I follow the mantra that these articles are the best Wikipedia has to offer, including writing style. As for getting the job done, I tend to have a problem actually focusing on these tasks when I have more pressing priorities on my mind. (Sorry, Bigs, your pilot article isn't as important as me getting ready to go back to school.) Basically, I tend to feel less compelled to do a big task, but it's still easy for me to procrastinate with these priorities hanging over my head, like keeping an eye on my watchlist. I mentioned to you that I'd get to it today in case you were wondering, "Erik seems to have plenty of time discussing executive producers with that dude... doesn't he have time for my pilot article?" I'm still packing (doing this in chunks, haha), and headed to school tomorrow night, so I don't know when I can get stuff addressed in order to sit down and go through your article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the FAC process for fictional topics. I don't know if I've mentioned Watchmen, but I planned to use it as a guide for Kingdom Come. When I reviewed the article, I realized it was in terrible shape, so I've made it a project to revise that one. I looked at the article's FAC process, and it was poor on criticism. I find it hard to support an article without making some suggestions first. As for moving, I'm going to live in a new apartment with a new roomie (glad to be out of the house where I've lived for two years with three roomies). Despite the downsizing, the madre's spoiled me a bit in setting me for life the school year. The drive's just four hours (better than the twelve I suffered coming home from my internship in New Jersey). It's my last year as an undergraduate student, but I'm going to do a one-year graduate program after that, so, two years. Plus, I was planning to start an ASL Club this fall, but I haven't done squat to structure the club... see what I mean about priorities hanging over my head? How about you? Seems like you've been working and taking classes this summer? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the analogy, though I think that WikiProject Comics is a bit worse off than WikiProject Films. Might be because the backstory of each fictional subject overwhelms any possible real-world context. What makes you think that editors eschew these types of articles, though, besides ignoring them? Has any editor proclaimed how much they loathe our work? I did like Awadewit's perspective, though it made me hesitate to put up articles like Fight Club for the FAC process without further research and expansion. (I'm waiting till I get back to school so I can print/evaluate the academic studies for these films; I'd like to preserve my printer ink, haha.) I do wish being an editor on Wikipedia could be a full-time job; it's the only active hobby I've embraced. I tend to do a little of this and that when it comes to activities. At least I get decent writing, research, and analysis skills out of this ordeal, not to mention being the forefront of film knowledge. (One caveat, though -- hard to get a film recommendation out of the blue without knowing about it. It's nice to sometimes put in a film about which you know nothing and just get absolutely blown away by it.)

As for academics, I'm probably selling myself out right now to the business school. My internship over the summer wasn't that exciting, but it's made me think that whatever long-term job I get, I really do want to enjoy. I was feeling like a cubicle zombie during my time there... oh, and it'd probably be beneficial to the company if they blocked Wikipedia or something. :) You know the job's not too enticing if you're taking care of your watchlist instead of your spreadsheets... I know friends who have had to "start over" with their education in a sense. For myself, I probably don't know what I want to do. I think of myself as a kind of polymath for my age, but there's nothing that I've really aspired to at this point. At least with the business education I'm getting (and I'm really getting it up the wazoo), I can probably eventually aspire to something and pursue it the capitalist way. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll show my parents something I did--being rather proud of it--and their response is usually, "yeah, did you get paid for that? Can you put that on a resume?" Things like that. Dude, I laughed out loud at this -- the exact same thing happened to me, these exact questions and questions along these lines. I even mentioned the message from Jimbo Wales to my dad one day, and that night, when my parents were hosting a dinner for another couple, my dad told them about it. (Unfortunately, the couple, not being so up to date, asked, "What's Wikipedia?" D'oh...) My dad also checks my user page once in a while, but he's not wiki-savvy enough to be familiar with the user talk page and back-and-forth discussion. (He's asked about Batman-on-Film, though, haha...) As for film talk, I unfortunately do not have any friends in close proximity that are as into them as I am. I have friends in other parts of the country that are like me, but it's obviously limited to online conversations. I have used Wikipedia at work the past two summers, but last summer was probably more productive than this past one... my back was to the entrance of the cubicle, so I couldn't really get into any serious work. Just kept it to checking the watchlist and doing periodical updates. I don't know about my wiki-presence this school year -- my schedule is a little more scattered, so I won't be home as often. Not to mention that I hope to be busy with the ASL Club, read some more (finally getting back into the habit from commuting to work all summer long), and maybe get into a serious work out regimen. Of course, we'll see how long my resolutions last... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great story, hahaha. My parents don't use Wikipedia (not much for the Internet, unlike me), so I'm in the clear. I do tend to avoid mentioning my editing to anyone but close friends; I can only imagine that others' first impressions wouldn't be too positive. I doubt I'd ever get involved to the point of editing heavily outside of film articles. If I wanted to learn about World War II, I'd probably find a good book to read rather than read the Wikipedia articles. Films are just nice, self-contained projects. I was thinking that they better start production on the Superman Returns sequel by the time The Dark Knight gets released -- we need a new linchpin article for you, me, and Alientraveller, as we seem to edit our own thing outside of TDK. Maybe the three of us can decide to collaborate on a specific older film if we don't find that new linchpin -- it'd be interesting to see what triple active collaboration could produce. Anyway, I'm going to head to bed early for a fresh start tomorrow. I'm sure I'll be editing some, but I gotta pack up my computer eventually. I don't know if I'll have Internet immediately when I get there, so we'll see how long I'll be AWOL. Later! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your mother is the worst kind of editor there is (besides these wascally vandals), hahaha -- all sorts of violations of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. :) At least she was courteous enough to ask for correction! Anyway, good night! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know we are supposed to write our articles in the present tense, but for the life of me, i cannot reemmber where we have been directed to do so. Can you assist? Maybe reply here, and not on my page (the same goes for the Erik Secret Service and the Alientraveller Helpful Info Agency - :) ) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, but I could be wrong.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-WarthogDemon 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Really Really Sorry Ill Undo that ASAP or if you done it for me Sorry. --Mithos90 23:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone apparently accused me of editing in favor of film studios, so he was contacting me to check this claim, though he noted from my various contributions that this seemed unlikely. Now, how do I work this bit into the "Satisfied Customer" section? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, I was thinking most of the day today (was on errands) about what he would have wanted to discuss with me. (I was slightly worried that my ownership-like must-have-verifiability conduct would have set off a red flag or something.) He said he really didn't need to look into it anyway, so I guess it was just happenstance. He actually inquired me about ideas for Wikia, and I shared with him my perspective of in-universe coverage of fictional subjects on Wikipedia (like what you and I have witnessed) and the inordinate length of film plots on some unmaintained articles on Wikipedia. We'll see if the discussion procures anything. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha, the Buffy fans are going to shit themselves. I created a new sandbox for the Faith Lehane article (another vampire slayer - really branching off into new areas), and condensed the plot summary to three paragraphs. I actually tried to make it longer but it just looked like padding so I cut it down. Anyway, give it a look over if you want (I know you've been arguing about long character histories with Andrew VDK's editors) and tell me your thoughts. Faith is such a fun character to write about, and there's loads of good info about her on the DVDs, so I have a good feeling about this article. :)

Oh, and thanks for the smile earlier. Paul730 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported your article. Was tempted to fail it for being DC-related but I decided that would be too mean. ;) Couldn't think of much to say really, it was as good as a television pilot article possibly could be IMO. Well done. Thanks for looking over my sandbox and fixing the odd typo and clumsy sentence. BTW, a minor question I've been meaning to ask you -- how should seasons be written; Season Five, season five, or Season 5? I don't suppose it really matters, but whatever...

Another random question, do you like Shaun of the Dead? Was watching it tonight, it's such a brilliant horror/comedy. Paul730 01:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, when you get round to answering the above questions, could you also help me full out a citation template for a book I wanted to reference (Buffy: The Monster Book). I copied one of the Crystal Lake citations from Jason's article to use as a basis, but I'm not sure where to find the date (the book only mentions years, not days/months). Also, for the name, should I put the authors or the person I'm quoting (a writer on the show). Paul730 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate the 5x5 title, although it took me a second to figure out what it meant - it's usually written "five by five" in episode titles/novels etc. Thanks for specifying the citation stuff - I'll ask you if I need more help or anything.

You live in Florida and I live in Glasgow... could we be more oposite if we tried? I've not seen Hot Fuzz yet, but I love Shaun. Speaking of Americanizing things... in Shaun, they had to had to change the word "pissed" to "drunk" at one point so you could understand it. That line always annoys me, lol. If you like British humour, you might like the new series of Doctor Who (who knows, maybe you already do?) because it's a very British programme. Paul730 03:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More questions about citing... There are three authors, what to do? Oh, and I'm not sure what to do with the "|authorlink=|" thing you mentioned. Not to sound like a complete and utter incompetent... but could you maybe do it for me? :/ The authors are listed on the page. Ta. Paul730 04:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I have no idea what a Padawan is... something to do with Star Wars I presume. Night. Paul730 04:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm Ewan MacGregor then... lol. Paul730 04:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wondering what images from the existing Faith Lehane article you think I should keep. There's only room for one image to fit tidily in the appearances section and I'm torn between the Angel one (which displays a crucial turning point in the development of the character) and the comic cover (which displays the character's portrayal in multiple medias). Also, I just found a cool fan website that I was thinking about putting in the external links section? Is that okay? Paul730 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, this doesn't seem to have anything like that, although I'll google it to check. I just liked it because it contained loads of really interesting essays and original research about Faith that aren't suitable for Wikipedia (like the meanings of her surname and tattoo etc), but still contribute to your understanding about the character. Paul730 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two, both linked on her page and my sandbox. They're not great, but I'll be dumping a lot of the Wikipedia stuff in the Buffyverse wiki once I move my sandbox to the mainspace. Also, I'm kinda tempted to just link that fansite anyway? I suppose people can complain about it if I ever submit the article for a peer review, is it really that big a deal? BTW, do wikias usually have profiles for fan fiction characters? Someone created one for "Britney Summers" and I'm not sure whether it belongs... Paul730 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have heard of Britney Summers - she's fan fic. Someone created her for their own roleplaying purposes and then made a profile of their own creation in the Buffyverse Wiki. So, hardly deserving of her own Wikipedia article. There are two Buffy wikis... I was thinking one could be for official stuff and the other for fan fic. Just to give them both their own separate identity and make them unique. What do you think? Paul730 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, why do you tilt your head and go omg? I respect the concept of Wikias - much of the material in the Buffyverse Wikipedia pages are well-written and accurate, just not encycopedically relevant. If the people who contributed fan info like relationship lists did so on a Wikia instead of here, Buffyverse Wiki would be a great little website. I actually dug through Jason's history, rescued the old plot summary which you deleted, and restored on the wiki which is linked at the bottom of the page because I didn't want to see it go to waste. Paul730 00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, which picture were you talking about, this or this? Lol, you've really got the hots for her, haven't you? Personally, I think she looks better in her Wikipedia pic, she's much prettier in Season 4 onwards. Paul730 00:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder you think she's hot, she's barely wearing any clothes and she has an inch of slap on! :P I think Cordelia is the prettiest Buffy/Angel female. Although, pretty much everyone fancies someone in Buffy/Angel, they're a hot cast. Charmed, for all it's shitness, has a really hot male cast, you can judge the females... (Did you get my second last messgae BTW?) Paul730 01:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, the Smallville Wikia episode pages have shorter plots than the Buffy episode pages on this website! *groan* I'll sort it out eventually... (Side note: the random episode I clicked on was "Craving" - what a bloody random storyline, lol) So who's your ultimate "OMG" hottest person in the world? PS, are you sure Cordy's boobs were fake? I thought she just got fatter. Paul730 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was such an inconvenient pregnancy! From what I hear, they were gonna do a whole big Angel vs Evil Cordy battle at the end of season 4, but they had to change it to Jasmine. Honestly, Angel was plagued with so many real-world problems I'm surprised it turned out so well, everything was a plan B.

BTW, I want to argue about your proposal to merge the Smallville characters. I know certain characters may not recieve media attention, but if they're an important part of the show then they're notable by association, IMO. I know it's a cliché but Wikipedia isn't paper, and as it says [1] "there is no reason why every character in the Simpsons can't have their own article." I'm mainly saying this for selfish reasons because if Chloe gets merged, Xander and Dawn will be next on the chopping block...

I'm noticing a trend in the women you fancy: eyeliner. Lol. My top "OMG" is Hugh Jackman, he's a little old but he's just a perfect speciman of a human being. Paul730 02:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being a bit of a hypocrite I guess, because I don't mind individual character pages but I'm not a fan of episode pages. Episodes just look tidier on a season page, like you've done with Smallville. As I've said on some talk page somewhere, if it's a special episode like the Buffy musical or a controversial one, then a episode page is fine. But usually they're just big plot summaries and too difficult to maintain. Yes, the Smallville character pages suck balls, but I'm sure they can be improved. Wikipedia is a work in progress remember. Besides, not every article needs to be an FA, does it? Can't a minor character have a decent little article with some OOU info and a brief plot summary without violating guidelines? I just think that being a main/significant character in a popular show automatically entitles them to their own article.

I'm not a fan of Tom Welling. I don't like his hair, and it's all about the hair for me. Supes is hot in the comics though, even if he is just a drawing. Paul730 03:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Types bangs in to find out what they are* Oh, a fringe? I don't like fringes, they look awful, especially Gwen Coopers. My friend got a fringe once, I had to be really diplomatic and that's not one my strong points face to face (I'm a bad liar). Okay, I sort of agree with you now about the character merge... sort of. I still think characters are notable by what show they're in, but I agree with you that articles are rushed. See Claire Bennet for how bad the Heroes characters pages are - I'm the one who tagged it BTW, for all the good it's done. Using Buffy as an example, I think that all the cast regulars, and Faith and Tara, deserve individual articles. Perhaps Joyce too. The Big Bads could be merged into a List of Big Bads article, and everyone else can go in Minor characters lists. Does that sound fair? Once I sort out the articles, of course... Paul730 03:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we would tear you to shreds if you came near Xander and don't you forget it! Lol. And thanks for the compliments, they're much needed in an environment like Wikipedia where it's all about criticism. The Bianca article... the useage of the word fans seems so unnecessary in some cases, and not always well-sourced. However, due to the nature of the article (a televison relationship, where fan pressure can have an affect on the plot) it might be acceptable occasionally but not to the extent that it is now. I'm also concerned about the informal language of the article, phrases like "The fans campaigned relentlessly and were pretty vocal." "pretty" hardly sounds encyclopedic. Maybe this is the result of the plaigerism (sp?) you pointed out. Paul730 04:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, so often I see typos and OR on the Buffy pages but I think "The whole pages needs rewritten anyway so what's point of polishing a dog turd?" BTW, I was reading yours and Erik's comments and that story about your mother on Wikipedia is very funny. Lol, it's the same for me - my mum doesn't care about Wikipedia because it's "just for fun" and not a real job. That said, I did show her some of the Buffy article and she said it was good. (She would have said it was good no matter what, so I won't take her word for it, lol.) Paul730 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you justifying your proposition to merge on the Smallville talk page, and I gotta say, I still don't fully agree with it. I know you're just following policy when you talk about notablity, but I think that's a faulty policy. Yes, if a character recieves media attention in secondary sources, it should be acknowledged accordingly, but if they get ignored in the media, that doesn't mean we should ignore them as well. Wikipedia should be comphrehensive, and if we want to compile a comprehensive series of articles about Buffy and Smallville, then the main characters require their own articles. Obviously the articles have to be written in an encyclopedic, OOU, focused manner; as you said, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. However, I think that means we shouldn't document trivia like fictional character's height and eye colour or lists of deaths in slasher films (which could be fine on a Wikia), that doesn't mean we should dismiss individual character pages entirely. Yes, Xander and Chloe may not be pop culture icons like Buffy and Clark, but they're main characters in shows that have been on the air for nearly a decade, which IMO makes them extremely notable. Sorry for the rant, I take issue with this policy, not you, and would make the same argument for other, non-fiction topics as well. Paul730 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an IU info pusher - you've seen my sandbox, I don't mind cutting down plot summaries. That stuff can go in a Wikia. However, Wikias are not encyclopedias - they are written informally for fans encourage OR and POV, so are not a valid substitute for a Wikipedia article. When I get around to editing people like Dawn and Xander's articles, they will be OOU and encyclopedic, just using mostly primary sources since they're not as "notable". (However, while I'm on the subject, would fan magazine articles (not written by fans or the shows creators) be secondary sources to establish notabilty? For example, does Xander being voted 3rd best Buffyverse male establish notabiliy? What about action figures?) I have no objection to episode articles if they're well-written (which, I believe, a lot of the Simpsons ones are?); it's not so much notability that concerns me about them, it's quality, and they're much more of an uphill struggle than character pages because there's so many of them.

The only reason these characters have their own articles is because they were not characters in the original comics. Should comic book Buffy have her own article because she's in a comic? Or should we have Jason Voorhees (DC Comics), since he has a comic history? The comic characters are still part of their counterparts, just a different medium. Chloe, Lionel, Jason, Whitney...they are merely part of the larger entity, Smallville, and haven't shown through reliable sources that their appear has impacted anything other than the fictional world of their show. Do we know if fans only watch the show because of these characters? The same for Buffy.

I'm really sure how the above is relevant to what I was saying. I wasn't agreeing with the person who suggested that Smallville Clark get his own article; far from it. The Marvel characters have many many many alternate versions of themselves, but they are just mentioned in their Earth-616 (normal continuity) pages because a fictional character is a fictional character regardless of what universe they live in. If Chloe and Lionel appear in the DC comics, that info should be included in their current articles, not a seperate page. Oh, and the Buffy analogy is flawed because comic Buffy is the same person as the one in the show, not an alt universe version. :P Even the non-canon stories are based on the TV character.

Oh, and I don't mean to play favourites. Obviously, I'm going on the defensive because I want Buffy character to have individual pages, but I'd argue the same for other characters whether I like them or not. If there was enough OOU info on Alice in F13, I'd welcome an article, notablity be damned. However, she's such a generic final girl I just don't think we could write a characterization section for her. Paul730 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread the paragraph I quoted. I misunderstood, thought you meant Clark Kent (Smallville) was just a small part of Clark Kent, rather than Smallville itself. Duh, of course I see how it's relevant now, should really read comments twice before replying. Paul730 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's just when you were saying how we'd be playing into IU favouritism I was like "That isn't what I want." Oh, and... *guilty look* I may have added a lot of IU crap to some articles. But that was before I learned the rules, kay? ;) And I was only following others' bad example. By primary sources, I meant cast & crew interviews, not drawing personal conclusions from the show.

I get your point about the analogy. The Buffy analogy was kinda flawed because Smallville is a total 100% reimagining of Superman, set in a parrallel universal from the comics. The Buffy comics/novels are meant to be set in the same universe as the show, it's just snobby fans don't count them because they're not by Joss Whedon (who also dismisses them). I personally count some of the non-canon stuff if it's good enough and in continuity. As for the film, it's in loose continuity... the script is more or less canon, before the crappy director turned it into a mess. Paul730 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Looks at Bignoles contributions* They don't look too bad, just typo corrections, not anything embarrassing. Yeah, I can never be arsed reading the rules, I'd rather just pester other editors ;) to tell me what to do. As for the Clark Kent confusion earlier BTW, here's what I meant (using Wolvie as an example since I don't know any alt Supes)

I thought you meant:

Wolverine (Ultimate universe) should not have his own article because he is the same character as Wolverine (comics).

Here's what you meant and I misunderstood:

Wolverine does not deserve his own article because he is just a one part of the overall X-Men series. (I know you didn't mean to say that Wolvie doesn't warrant an article, just an example)

I guess it's the same point. Paul730 22:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. :) I completely agree with you about the Wolverine thing, BTW. Although I think Wolvie, Hulk, and Spidey actually have separate lists of alternate versions because there's so bloody many of them. Oh, and that old edit is very funny to anyone who's worked with you. Who knew you created trivia lists?! Lol, :P My first edit was creating Willow Rosenberg#Appearance, it's basically just a load of OR that's so crap in retrospect. Paul730 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How incredibly nerdy of you more like! Lol, I see you did it wrong as well, didn't notice that before. Oh well, at least you improved with time. Paul730 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the award. It's not on the Buffy page, but it is on "Awards for Buffy" page. I've never worked on the article for the show itself, but it's an FA. No doubt you'll look at it now and see five hundred things wrong with it, lol. ;) Paul730 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of a pilot, unsuccessful simply means it didn't get picked up into a full series.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got to deal with the interesting little fellow, Matthew as well. or someone so prolific in edit count, he doesn't sem to have a lot in the way of clues as to what policy is, does he? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was just woundering how come i am not allowed to add new episodes of smallville to the episodes list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mulready (talk • contribs) 08:37, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Hey, can you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Producers, executive producers, et al.? Trying to work something out with this editor, but nothing seems to fly. (And I'll copy-edit the pilot article sometime soon, dammit...) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed on his talk page the example of American Cinematographer, which has a lot of specialty information -- not always fun to read, but there's sometimes nuggets in these articles. I think that the trade papers' listing of producers of all types is a form of catering to the industry, as their non-specific-film headlines are clearly industry-focused. I don't know if Dawgknot will be convinced or not; in lieu of consensus, the editor(s) with the most stamina take the prize on Wikipedia, it seems. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is where business can be transacted, then let's do it here. I'm more interested in hearing your thoughts about how an editor can reasonably pick and choose between producers without knowing 1) how the industry really works (and who here really knows?) and 2) in the face of the published record by those who do know how it works? I know you and Erik know each other and it is natural to offer support, but is that really how this encyclopedia works? Personal relationships? It's natural and I understand it, but let's don't work that way.

I think that speculating about why a trade paper publishes names is a trap. It seems to me that if an editor uses a reliable source then the burden is on the other editor to do more than surmise about why material is reported. Isn't that fundamental to the encyclopedia? Dawgknot 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the burden on the editor to demonstrate that a given producer "only gave money"? It seems to me that an objective observer wouldn't conclude in the absense of a reliable source what the contribution of any producer was. And yet if their name appear repeatedly in trade publications as they did yet again twice today...that is proof postitive that the experts on the industry conclude otherwise. You must mount a better argument than that which has appeared so far. Dawgknot 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He throws around WP:OWN, he says this, he invokes feelings... told you that I doubted your opinion would sway matters. I've been looking all over the Internets for more coverage about how the subsidiary producers are broken down (so we don't have to keep having circuitous, subjective arguments), but there doesn't seem to be anything. I know from my experience with film articles that the "classic" producers (like Joel Silver) are directly involved, and it looks like executive producers could warrant mention if they are noted for doing something (Spielberg for Transformers). I mean, look at 300! Is it reasonable to have all these subsidiary producers' names in what ought to be a concise Infobox? A case like that reflects that there needs to be a limit, and the only cap I can see is to keep it to "classic" producers unless noted in the article body otherwise. I don't care to pick and choose names; the heads of the departments, like Girolamo mentioned, seems to be the only appropriate concise and objective (in a sense) criteria for the Infobox. I really hope to hell that there's some coverage for The Spirit next week where the executive producers sit in an interview and explain their significant contributions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And congrats about the newspaper listing! I won my third grade spelling bee (winning word: independence), but I didn't get in the newspapers. :( I've been in some smaller publications, though... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, we've been mentioned in a separate forum (BOF), and Jimbo Wales has actually talked to me! You're practically famous by association! :) A really nice amendment, though it's too big of a step, would be a subpage with all the credits listed, rather than in the Infobox. Then, then, you could have an optional Infobox where you can pick whose names you want to appear (visual effects supervisor, CEO, even executive producers!) on your screen only! An editor can dream, can't he... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree about producers being removed. Except for top-tier directors like Spielberg, "classic" producers can exert a bit of control over the production of the film. I found this, which explains the producers' roles well. I've looked at the IMDb pages for Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, and it seems clearer (to my eyes) that their main contributions are when they were "classic" producers. Of course, not an argument to invoke with this ongoing discussion, as it's too subjective, but that's what I see. Heck, Spielberg was even executive producer for The Flintstones... blech, bad movie. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to your comment on Erik's page. It's not that I don't "like" your opinion. It's just that I don't understand it from the standpoint of an encyclopedia. If the nature of the film project was limited entirely to the 'during-production-creative-geniuses', then I would see that we could eliminate many geniuses and non-geniuses alike. I just don't understand this bias that excludes the contribution of anyone other than a "classic producer" when clearly the trade press doesn't agree. Dawgknot 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to your comment on my page. We must be talking past each other because we can't seem to focus on the issue of these articles.

1) The PGA standardards:

EXECUTIVE PRODUCER

1. The credit of Executive Producer shall only apply to an individual who has made a significant contribution to the motion picture and who additionally qualifies under one of two categories:

a. Having secured an essential and proportionally significant part (no less than 25%) of the financing for the motion picture; and/or

b. Having made a significant contribution to the development of the literary property, typically including the securement of the underlying rights to the material on which the motion picture is based. http://www.producersguild.org/pg/about_a/pcoc1a.asp

As you can see, more than just money is required. As a threshold matter, wouldn't you now agree that an Executive Producer, by definition, has provided more than money? And wouldn't you reasonably agree that an editor who presumes otherwise must somehow offer WP:V for that presumption?

2) Trade article after trade article identify these people indicating to an objective person that they are important, even indispensible, to the film? Wouldn't you reasonably agree that an editor who presumes otherwise must somehow offer WP:V for that presumption?

3) I am not saying that just anyone who gets a mention in a newspaper automatically qualifies for mention in the film article. You are arguing the absurd limits to make your point. Let's try to limit the discussion to the producers and let's wait for another day to jump off a costume designer bridge. If the best boy starts getting mentioned in the trade articles, then we had better reconsider. Dawgknot 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why in heavens do multiple trade industry reporters and editors bother to write about them in virtually every article? Why do you support the presumption that only money was involved? Wouldn't some WP:V support for that be required? Plus you misread the standards. The PGA says:

"The credit of Executive Producer shall only apply to an individual who has made a significant contribution to the motion picture AND who additionally qualifies under one of two categories:"

So obviously money wasn't the only issue. Wouldn't you reasonably agree? Dawgknot 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you don't want to discuss it further. We all have other lives. You seem to support a specialty article approach that is narrow to some focus that isn't specified in the style guide. My view is that the article must be broader to incorporate those obvious contributors that that somehow received producer credit of some kind. Those are obviously hard credits to get, otherwise, we would all have one. And there are many many producers who get no mention of their work in the trades. As far as I am concerned, that is prime facie evidence of their importance to the film. You assume too much is based on money. I make no such assumption. I see far more evidence of producers getting credits because they run the studio. But then you don't see those credits mentioned in Daily Variety articles. Thanks for your input in any event. Dawgknot 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find that (the one with the bells and whistels and such). I've come across a new user who could benefit from a welcome/resources template thingie. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bignole. Hope your day is full of The Interestingness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a Wikipedia shortcut for the Wikimedia essay, [Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Recently, that redirect was nominated at Redirects for discussion - the consensus was that it should be retargeted. (that discussion being here. I don't disagree with the reassignment, but it's left the essay hanging. How do I create a new direct (like "WP:NOTGAY" or somesuch)? The essay is amusing enough to deserve a direct. As always, Erik or Aleintraveller should feel free to chime in here (and top o' the muffin to you lads! :) )- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I think I bollixed it up. Halp! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was always on meta, but had a WP shortcut. I am not sure it should be imported into WP, or even how (aside from cut-and-paste). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While he was kind of a jerk about how he mentioned it, was there a specific argument against having links to the episodes (the link being in the episode name)? I loved the look of the list, and felt it didn';t violate the critera he was citing, but I personally think episodic links would have been nifty. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC: "So I think I might be back on to do Transformers 2!" Dammit! :-P I personally would like a different take on the franchise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I guess I feel that films like Spider-Man 3 and Transformers could have been better, especially seeing The Bourne Ultimatum, probably one of the best summer films I've seen in a while. I guess I'm in agreement with the points made in that Editing Room mock-abridged script; just wish that there was a little more substance to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Lantern would have an awful lot of green, haha. They'd have to do bluescreen instead. They ought to do Hal Jordan's entrance (not Alan Scott or Kyle Rayner) and have him deal with Sinestro. Jordan's exit would be hard to pull off, though, if we didn't implement the story arc of the death and rebirth of Superman (which would be a hell of a film series; I've wondered how they would portray a Doomsday onscreen). It seems really hard to overlay the different storylines with the productions of different films, though... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the whole Parallax situation in which Hal Jordan was really not responsible for his actions? (Was that the case?) It seemed like the explanation of Parallax as a separate supervillain took away from any actual descent of Hal Jordan as a superhero, where he's welcomed back with (mostly) open arms nowadays. I haven't kept up with the evolution of the Green Lantern after being thrown off by Kyle Rayner becoming the Ion, except for Jordan being able to return... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That approach would work well. One thing that's always bothered me about these comic book universes, though, is that there's all these entities and empires going on, yet Earth and its superheroes don't seem to advance as a result of this advanced-culture exposure. I recently read Countdown via torrent, and I'm not that impressed with the arc so far, especially the way it focuses on Earth -- what about Oa, New Genesis, Wonderworld, etc.? It's a little too overwhelming sometimes, and I'm not sure if all elements are always realistically intertwined. (I know, I know, they're comic books.) I like Marvel better than DC in a sense; there's a concern from human civilization itself about the mutants and superheroes -- Sentinels to take out mutants, this Superhero Registration Act in the Civil War story arc. It seems a little weaker in DCU. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it, that, in a situation where two topics share the same name, the most well-known one gets the upper hand and doesn't need brackets? I know you like(d) the film, but the TV show is undeniably more famous, even if it did come second. Paul730 21:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Apprentice rocks. Never seen the US one, although it's been shown. I'm not really bothered about the renaming, just wondered what the policy was on it. :) Paul730 22:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you on that, it is pretty POV. Paul730 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Smallville-fan friend always thought they should have had him in the reboot. I haven't liked any of the Superman actors. Because he's so ridiculously over-hot in the comics, no mere mortal seems to live up to him. I have Superman Returns on DVD and I wasn't a fan. It felt like it was never going to end. Is JLA going to be in continuity with SR and BB, do you think? I always thought that Charisma Carpenter would be an ideal Wonder Woman and Gina Torres would be a perfect Storm. Paul730 00:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I saw your heading and laughed. I have extremely vague memories of the Reeve Superman films, but I know I'm not a fan. I enjoyed them as a little kid watching them with my mum (who's a big fan of the Supes movies and looks down on Smallville as "not real" - I tried to explain alternate continuities but she wouldn't listen), but nowadays it just seems a little... rushed?

I went back to that link of your old edits and I keep seeing things I didn't notice before, like this... When Jesse tries to run for help he is greeted by our faithfully omnipresent, grotesque, diabolical friend, Freddy. Very NPOV, lol. :P Paul730 00:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% your words, lol. It seems so weird to think that you wrote that, it's like the work of a totally different person. The prose is actually pretty good, it would be good for a fansite or a Wikia. Paul730 00:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, half the stuff I deleted from the Faith article was my own work. Have you never been drunk in your life? Do you just not like it? That seems so strange to someone who lives in Scotland, where people start drinking vodka at 14/15. Is it the same in America? US television suggests not. Although you guys might have the right idea: I was at the park the other week and my drunken friend set a bin on fire and jumped over it. He cut his hand open on broken glass and we had to take him to hospital. Such is the sophisticated life I lead. ;) Paul730 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the taste of booze either, but I stil do it because I like being drunk. The only booze I like the taste of is long vodkas (because you can't taste the alcohol) and poof juice (because it tastes like a soft drink). I'm a total lightweight, which is good cos it means a cheap night out. The worst I've ever been drunk is at my friends 18th, I swear to god I had about three vodka & cokes and half a bottle of straight vodka which I had smuggled into the pub. I can't remember anything except waking up covered in vomit, but apparently I collapsed on the dance floor. It was mentioned in the yearbook and everything! Lol, so embarassing. Paul730 01:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy being drunk because I'm usually a very shy, reserved person, and being drunk loosens me up and gets rid of my inhibtions. I can still have fun without drink, it just takes me a little longer to feel comfortable. I haven't ever been as drunk as I was that one time - I learned my lesson and I'm more sensible now (although that said, I was pretty smashed at my prom). As for somebody messing with you, a girl in my school got teabagged at a party once when she passed out, so it can be a little dangerous. Paul730 01:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They shaved her head? That's so evil! That is like getting raped because a woman's hair is part of her femininity and to take that away is a total violation! Oh well, I guess she could get extensions, but still. You must have pretty horrible friends. It's embarrassing for me because, because I'm such a lightweight, I get drunk first and everyone else is still sober so they'll remember what I said/did. That night at the park, I was the only sober one, so this guy's bleeding really badly (he got 8 stitches), and I'm panicking because I'm the only one lucid enough to help him. In my school, everybody has embarassing drunken stories associated with them, like this one guy who shit himself. Paul730 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not funny. I'm all for a bit of drunken fun or practical jokes, but that's basically rape, only not sexual. The people who did that must be really nasty human beings. As for the shitting themselves story, that sounds hilarious, do tell... Paul730 03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have been nearly as bad if it had been you though, you're a guy and hair isn't as important to guys. I'd rather have my own hair cut off than see it done to one of my female friends. The shit story is funny and extremely disgusting. What was your reaction, were you just in shock? Lol. Paul730 03:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of a scene in American Pie 2, when Jim superglues his hand to his dick, and one of his friends says it happens to the best of us. Moving off the topic of embarrassing stories for a moment, I'm converting the quotes in the "Concept and creation" section of my sandbox into prose, but I'm confused about what qualifies as "Concept and creation" and what is "Characterization". If you could take a look, I'm especially uncertain about the Elektra bit and the stuff about her name. Paul730 03:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about moving this I had to find the voice for it or it just wasn't going to work. She's not hesitant and in a lot of ways, I took a lot of inspiration from the character itself in terms of the creative process - to really go for it and be strong in my choices. which is currently in the characterization section, to the C&C section. It's about how the author approached writing the character. However, this books was written years after she first appeared, so she'd already been created. Is the C&C section only for the initial creation, or how the writers continued to write her throughout her history? Paul730 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Paul730 04:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not sure about "Character development" actually, sound too similar to "Characterization". Maybe have "Characterization" with subheadings "concept", "personality", etc? That's what Captain Jack has. (Harkness not Sparrow, although Sparrow may have as well). Paul730 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but a newbie editor might mistake "Character development" as a section detailing how the character evolved over the shows, rather than how she was written. I'll keep it the way it is for now, you can pull me up on it later if it doesn't look right. Paul730 05:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a debate going on at Talk:List of Angel episodes to merge Angel episodes into a list. There's quite a few "Keep"s from fans who don't want their plot summaries changed. Just wondering if you wanted to offer your opinion since you're a stickler for notability, and I used Smallville (season 1) as an example of how they could be restructred. Paul730 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on the Angel page. I do think that Buffyverse episodes have the potential to be a really good article, but they're just crap at the moment. Just one thing, what ownership issues did you mean? There's some issues about canon and stuff, but I don't think ownership is as big a problem as you insinuated. Paul730 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are diehard fans. :) Do you really think the Buffy Summers page will be that controversial? After all, Jason's article was not too dissimilar to Buffy's before you moved your sandbox, and you've had nothing but praise for it. The only thing I think people will moan about is the acknowledgement of the film, but they'll just have to deal with it, won't they. ;) Paul730 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is really slow for me right now... The Buffy article isn't all that active. The odd spelling fix or a well-intending fan adding OR. I noticed Jason was nominated for FA. About time. :) I'm not allowed to vote because I worked on it a little, am I? Not sure about the rules. Paul730 00:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, there are quite a few active Buffy editors, they just don't make any really major edits. I don't think I have to worry about the wolves. If they do complain about the new article, they don't have to leg to stand on in terms of policies, and you can back me up on that. :P Not that the Buffy article will be ready anytime soon... her and Faith are kind of in limbo right now coz I'm waiting for my friend to lend me the Watcher's Guides. I should really write up the citation templates, but that's just such a tedious task that I'm procrastinating as much as possible. I created an Angel sandbox to keep me busy in the meantime. After Faith is finished, it's on to Spike and Willow. Or maybe Giles? He is getting his own show next year, so it might be good to get his article in good shape before hand. Too many characters, too little time... Paul730 00:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's getting a TV movie called Ripper. It's been in development hell for years, but it's actually getting made now, apparently. And Giles is totally deserving of his own show - you obviously don't appreciate the layers to these characters. :P Paul730 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, Wiki is sooo slow for me right now, I can't even do anything. Didn't even think you got my last comment. I'm not sure if Ripper is an ongoing show, I think it's just a one-off at the moment. And I don't know, I think it could last quite long. It would be better than the crap that the BBC pushes out on a regular basis, and Anthony Head is pretty famous over here, always appearing in this and that. Plus all the Buffy fans would be over it like a rash... Paul730 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The show is going to air on the BBC. It will be set in England and probably filmed in England (since Tony Head left Buffy because he didn't like working in America). There have been lots of supernatural drama on the BBC lately. A Dracula adaptation last xmas was very well advertised and received good rating, and a Jekyll series did similarly well. Not to mention Doctor Who and it's various spin-offs (which was revived after being off the air for a decade or something). The show is not Buffy - it will have an entirely different tone from what I hear. I imagine a Ripper one-off would do very well over here if the BBC promoted it well (which, judging from the Torchwood promotions, they're very capable of). Oh, and there are no commerical breaks on the BBC, just ads for upcoming shows on the channel. Paul730 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was kind of my point, lol. Here's some fan-made credits for it. I don't think that's exactly the tone Joss Whedon is going for, but I really want Andrew in it. I love him I love him I love him. Not in a gay way, he just makes me laugh so much. :D Paul730 02:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the cast are not confirmed. I doubt Michelle would do it, she doesn't seem very loyal to the franchise, IMO. Besides, Dawn and Xander should always stay with Buffy, they're her rocks. Buffy is rumoured to make a cameo, but I'm not bothered. I like crossovers, but it's Giles' show, not hers. Paul730 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some disgruntled fans replying to your comment at Talk:List of Angel episodes. Care to put them in their place? Paul730 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally moved into my new apartment, and I'm pleased with the location. Still trying to find a place for all my things and get drapes for the windows (currently have linens hung up in a ghetto fashion), but the place will work out. (Been occupied with other activities, which is why my edit count is down the past few days.) I was looking at Batman Begins today, and I was wondering about a collaboration between you, me, Alientraveller, and whoever else was interested to put the article up for FA status. I was thinking that we could request it as Featured Article of the Day for the first wide release of The Dark Knight, though I wasn't sure if that was too much promotional catering. This way, readers could also be led to the sequel article (which of course will be in fine condition for a just-released film) and absorb all the new information. I am thinking that for Batman Begins, we need to fine-tune Production (especially Filming, as a bit of it is too bland, just talking about locations), try to put some real-world context in the Cast section (we can merge bits of the paragraph to the respective role), and definitely expand the Critical reaction section. We can provide some critical analysis like this, and I'll look around for more references in journals. Any thoughts? I think it'd be cool to see multiple collaboration among us in a more compressed timeframe since information doesn't slowly creep like out with future films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think O'Neill and Morrison's opinions are worth it. Alientraveller 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha... sounds like it would've been a good candidate for Wikipedia:Silly Things. Won't be asking him for his input anytime soon... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My uncle borrowed the DVD so I'm being tortured. I don't have my favourite superhero movie! Alientraveller 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not own the DVD. (For shame, I know!) But yeah, I have a hankering to watch it... for some films, being familiar with their Wikipedia articles (like Spider-Man 3 and Transformers) make me more familiar with the movies. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Invisible Barnstar? I don't see it... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you got me... I was just tugging your leg. ;) Are you really gonna be watching Batman Begins now? I just had one of the longest Mondays of my life, and it's longer for ensuing Mondays 'cause I have to do an individual lab with a "lab leader" at 8 freakin' PM... Garfield would pity me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about Garfield. As for school, it's more of a lab in an "extra class" sense -- there's a lecture on Tuesday and Thursday, and there are also labs these days (just later on). They're not explicitly connected. It's a career placement course, required for business majors... and it's going to be 8 weeks of hell. I feel busy already, and I haven't even dealt with tomorrow's classes yet. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've heard that before; it's considered a plot hole in the film. I guess this was their best choice for a weapon that would not screw up the city's infrastructure and just attack the population. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would doubt it, at least for this sequel. The struggle seems to be focused more on mob bosses, the Joker, and authorities in a power struggle over Gotham City. Maybe Zsasz will have another cameo, but it probably won't be very big. Considering his nature, he would have to be someone that Batman individually targets. Zsasz isn't that big in the comics, though, so I'm not sure if he'd warrant much more than a subplot -- perhaps to threaten Gordon's family somehow. In any case, The Dark Knight is going to be damn impressive. I really am interested in seeing how Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face, like if he'll exhibit any dual tendencies beforehand. He's had some fucked-up turns in the comics, especially the OYL return. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I love reading bad reviews of classic films. Empire named and shamed bad reviewers for Citizen Kane, The Searchers, The Wizard of Oz and Fellowship of the Ring. Alientraveller 08:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the reviews so far. They definitely serve as introspective criticism of the presentation of the film and not just fluff like before. I'm hoping to do my share soon, but I'm still adjusting to school... got two separate chapters to read tonight for tomorrow. I'm finding some nice offline references that will help the article lean away from some online references that could be disputed in the FAC process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could merge Batman Begins (soundtrack) to the film article, sans the track listing? The listing doesn't have any actual links to songs, and I don't believe it's been embraced enough to warrant its own article. (Any mention of the film score in going through the reviews?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't open the bag, and you're golden. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant items in the article are how the tracks are named after bat species, and how #4-9 spell out Batman. The rest of the information is about songs being used in other media, but the mentions aren't verifiable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, not too wild I hope. I mean I shouldn't really be swearing... I just wonder if the pictures are big enough for impact. I was thinking of you by the way with the Singer caption. Alientraveller 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the picture is a combination of two magazine covers from some film magazine in the past, plus the bad addition of the "teeth" (I thought they were fingers at first, haha) shows that it's Photoshopped. I've never come across this poster, either, and being that Spidey fans are all over this shit, its lack of mention shows that it's most likely fake. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, haha. I've been Googling for magazine covers. Another close call is here. In any case, the image's not to be used in place of the international poster. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should put together a userbox that says, "This user takes medication due to severe irritation from image FU hounds," with a picture of aspirin or something. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These poopyheads. I'll see if I can give them a piece of my mind, but right now, I have to go to class. I had to download Visual Studio 2005 (a 1.2 GB installation file) last night... that took forever on this apartment connection. I had given up and gone to bed, so now I'm gonna work on VS on campus. Later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image is nominated for deletion. I was wondering if you think the image should stay or go.--CyberGhostface 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting my user talk page! ACBest 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 days is better than 1

Very true! ACBest 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing to you too ;) ACBest 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that another person has recognized the great work that you've done! Question: Would you want me to seek out any critical analysis of the character? I can try to see what I can find. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding... I want to write Interpretations of Fight Club already and contribute to Batman Begins with the Cinefantastique resources. Schedule's kind of killing me, so I'm trying to get stuff during what few breaks I have. I'll see if anything pops up in my research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering, what was the talk about editors looking to delete lists of episodes? What is the basis of their thinking? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister.Manticore mentioned such deletionists, but I didn't bother to catch up on that talk page's archives. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It almost seems like canvassing... especially the "Look out, they're gonna delete!" edit summary. Seeing WikiProject Horror's lack of strong discussion on its talk page as opposed to something like WikiProject Films, it doesn't seem any serious editors would be attracted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wiki-discussion can be weak because there's no actual actual payoff for the editors. Arguments will go on as long as they want to. Re: Kamp, good riddance, I say. I've been homeworkin' on this fine eve, though I did manage to print out a couple of academic studies for Fight Club to read at some point. I'm going to crash now so my Friday isn't so cruddy, so later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bignole, I was not aware that the Jason Voorhees article was going through the Featured Article process. If I had known, as I told you before, I would have voted to promote that article, because it is such a great article. Anyway, it's good to see it listed as a Featured Article, regardless of my vote or not, of course. Not that my vote would have weighed a lot on its Featured Article status, of course. Talk to you later. And congratulations on getting the Jason Voorhees article to Featured Article status. Flyer22 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides responding to you about BAM just now, I also just now queried you on a matter about the Todd Manning article. Flyer22 22:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, are you intending on seeing the remake? Alientraveller 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Maybe on TV someday when I'm less squeamish. I was reading some of the reviews about how demystifying and unsuspenceful it is. The original film certainly sounds like a horror flick I would enjoy. Alientraveller 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I thought TCM was actually scary. Alientraveller 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Demystifying and unsuspenseful" - isn't that what I said would happen? I'll still see it and enjoy it though. :) Even the worst Halloweens are watchable and I love Michael too much to miss a new film. Paul730 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only read the bits about the monster in Frankenstein - the rest was too boring, lol. I haven't attempted to read Dracula, although a girl in my English class did and had to give up because she couldn't understand a word it said. I prefer comics to novels to be honest, although I love Bridget Jones's Diary, as random as that sounds. :P Paul730 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys read? I've lapped up most of the 19th century stuff in addition to the likes of Lewis and Tolkien. Alientraveller 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading reviews, and they're kinda putting me off it a bit. :( I heard it's like watching two different films which have nothing in common with each other; a little kid being abused by his family, and a dodgy remake of the original movie. The biggest criticism I've heard is how Michael's family have been turned from the perfect nuclear family into stereotypical white trash hicks. I don't like how Zombie seems to ignore the Laurie Strode character - she was never going to be as good as Jamie Lee Curtis, but he could at least have treated her with some respect. As for the violence, I heard it's a really sexist movie - the male deaths are barely notable whereas the females are all naked, sexualised toture scenes. As I've said before, I'll probably still enjoy it regardless of it's flaws, and I suppose it's nice to have a different take on Michael, even if it's not as good as the original. After all, as one reveiwer pointed out, last time we saw Michael he was engaging in kung fu with Busta Rymes so anthing is better than that, lol. Paul730 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's out over here. Might go and see it with my friend, but I'm not in any rush, TBH. Might just wait for the DVD. I suppose we have had three Laurie films, but is it really a good idea to focus so much on Michael? I know we've discussed this before, but isn't the whole point of "The Shape" that he be reglegated to the shadows and kept a mystery. Giving depth to Jason's character was good, but doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose to make "pure evil" a sympathetic character? You're right, though, I will need to see it for myself before I can properly comment. How is Loomis in it? Paul730 23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. It's good that it isn't a shot for shot remake, but it just doesn't sound like the Michael I know and love (which is silly, because he isn't meant to be, but still). At least the mask looks good, thats more than parts 4 - 8 managed to do. Someone said that Zombies' Halloween is so different from the original that he might as well not have released under that title, because it was only going to draw unfair comparison. What did your girlfriend think of it? She didn't like the original, did she? Paul730 00:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it seems like you're always dragging your girlfriend to see these really violent horror movies. TCM homage... hmm, is Laurie so tramatised that all she can do is scream and cry? I'm glad you like the movie, and you're making me want to see it again after all those bad reviews put me off. Never read reviews before you see a film, it's never a good idea. Paul730 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, your poor traumatised girlfriend, screaming her little heart out, and you're just laughing. Call me a pussy, I don't actually like it when scary movies are scary. I haven't seen Hostel because I'm too afraid, and I'm pretty immune to gore. I remember my old physics teacher told me he wanted to see Hostel, and then when it came out, he was too scared because of it's reputation. Lol, I'd probably see it and be like "what was all the fuss about?" Doctor Who can be scary sometimes - especially the episode "Blink". I can't really tell you the story because it would spoil it, so just watch it yourself when you get the time. You don't need to know anything about the show, it's a standalone episode which barely features the Doctor. Apparently my friend is borrowing a pirate copy of Halloween from his cousin, so he said he'll lend it to me (I know it's wrong, but I don't have ten quid to go to the cinema, so whatever :P). Paul730 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your g/f that the original TCM is shit. I like horror movies, but I don't see the appeal of TCM. I like when the final girl is somewhat empowered - Nancy entering the dream world of her own accord to take down Freddy, Laurie facing off against Michael in H20. Even if they aren't empowered, I need to care about someone in the film, and I just didn't care about Leatherface or Sally. That said, I didn't really care about the girl in the remake, but I still enjoyed it... maybe the original was just too "real" for me, whereas the remake felt like a movie. Oh, and as for Andrew, lets hope it gets more attention now than it did in round 1. Paul730 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen TCM sequels and I'm not in any hurry (doesn't Leatherface become a transvestite in one...lol?). The original TCM just feels like a snuff movie, and it makes for kind of uncomfortable viewing. A little fantasy is good for a movie. I prefer the remake of Night of the Living Dead to the original, because, in the old one, Barbara is a raving loony, and in the remake, she's basically Sarah Connor (who I also love, surprise surprise). The original Barbara is probably more realistic, but the newer one is more fun to watch. LucifierMorgan was a little rude about what was basically a typo, but I guess he felt frustrated at having to explain such an obvious mistake. Oh well, it's fixed now and I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. :) I'll definitely support Jason too, in fact, I think I'll do so right now. Paul730 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The TCM series just isn't my cup of tea. If they come on TV, I'll give them a chance. I love the Dead series, especially Dawn (although I rarely watch it, coz it's just so bloody long). I don't remember much from Day (except for Bub), but I heard that it was basically supposed to be Land until budget cuts. Not seen Land yet, but I hear good things. Low budgets make the director work harder at characterization, so I don't mind a low budget. Paul730 23:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it depends on the director... T2 had a big budget (I assume) but that has some of the best characters ever to grace our screens (I love the T-1000 - Robert Patrick is such a creep but I love him). *Types in Diary of the Dead to find out what it is* - Yay, a new zombie film. This one looks a bit more up my street than Land. I also love 28 Days Later, even though it's not really a zombie film. It's so disturbingly realistic, but it's also a character-driven film (as most zombie movies are, come to think of it). Paul730 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went into 20DL expecting zombies, but I still loved it. I love how the humans, especially Christopher Eccleston's character, were the real villains, not the infected. (Which, again, come to think of it, is also true of the Dead quradilogy as well). I've not seen Red Eye, no. Paul730 00:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not seen it. I remember my friend tried to say that Resident Evil was a better film than Evil Dead and I was just like, stop talking, stop talking now. Honestly, these kids today have no respect for the classics, lol. Paul730 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it, although that doesn't mean it never aired. Looks funny, even though I'm not a fan of westerns. I love the ED trilogy, but I wish the writing had been a bit more consistant. It's a horror, it's a comedy, it's an action. Ash is a loser, a hero, an asshole. I guess that's part of it's charm, but still. Think you'll get Marvel Zombies vs. The Army of Darkness? It's basically Ash versus zombified versions of Marvel superheroes. Paul730 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So.... Marvel Zombies? It seems like the perfect crossover for you. I've read the original story in Ultimate Fantastic Four and the subsequent miniseries, and it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. The interactions between the zombie superheroes is hilarious (they can talk, BTW). I like how both the humans and the zombies get a happy ending... in a sick way, lol. Paul730 00:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it would be ludicrous onscreen, but I'd give the comic a shot. I know you don't really like comics, but it's a really funny (and really gross) little series. The Hulk eats a man, then when he turns back into Banner, the bones burst out of his stomach. It's that kind of sick humour, but there's a decent little story in there as well. I've not got the one with Ash yet, but I heard he beats up a deadite, before realising it's actually just a homeless woman. Lol, typical Ash. Paul730 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could play laissez-faire for now till the editor recedes into the background... doesn't have a very high count, may not stick around forever. Work on other stuff like Reception and save the shorter Plot version elsewhere for later importing. Just my $0.02. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stepped in on the talk page. His version reads like a short story - trying to be dramatic to keep the reader entertained. He probably doesn't know that's not how it should be done. Maybe if you were a little less aggressive, in all fairness, you were a little rude. Paul730 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you were both getting a little schoolyard ("I'm going to tell on you!" "He started it!"). Summarising his version sounds like a good compromise. He obviously knows how to write, perhaps just not in the tone appropiate for an encyclopedia. Like I said, it was a little dramatic (the "It is Halloween." scene-setter especially). Not sure I agree with Erik that you should just wait until the editor goes away though... shouldn't we be trying to help each other instead of hoping the other one gives up? Paul730 02:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't read his version properly, I was going by what I read on the talk page. The plot summary looks good enough for the moment. I agree with Erik that you should probably concentrate on other areas of the article, and maybe go back and perfect the plot later if necessary. Paul730 02:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it's okay. I know what's it's like to get frustrated with other editors, I've been involved in a few petty arguments myself. Besides, I dragged you into the Angel episodes argument (which seems to have died since your last comment - guess they didn't know what to say). Paul730 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a wikiproject for the Saw films at WikiProject Saw, in case you're interested.--CyberGhostface 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both, basically. You don't have to note kp or rm if you're in-between. Or you might do so and also indicate that you'd still like to see X, Y, Z done. As it's another two or three weeks you can always come back to revisit your comment. Marskell 07:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision to move Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) has been reverted and is being challenged on the talk page. Apparently, it's not supported by policy or something? Paul730 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you don't like "canon" do you? I was reading a forum last night of fans whining about Season 8, and how it wasn't canon because it was a comic book. I thought "you bunch of snobs, just because you don't like comics you're writing off the whole thing?" Some of them even said that Seasons 6 & 7 were non-canon because they aired on the UPN instead of the WB, and that Joss Whedon couldn't be trusted to write the characters because he killed off Tara for being gay. Come on, characters die all the time in the Buffyverse, why should Tara be an exception just coz she's a lesbian? That's just double standards. BTW, another editor dished up some sources for my Buffy sandboxes... do these establish the notablity of Xander/Dawn (they're on my talk page)? Oh, and I noticed me and Erik have been labeled your "over-zealous sycophants". Lol, pity the person who wrote that didn't have the balls to sign in beforehand. Paul730 17:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joss didn't kill off Tara because she was gay, in fact he admits he would have killed off Oz if Willow has still been with him. But a lot of lesbian fans still hate him for killing off what they see to be "their" character. They think that Tara should have been immune from death because she was a gay icon, and get together on forums to write "Tillow" fan fiction and slag off Joss Whedon. Urgh, they're so annoying. You don't see them grieving for Anya or Cordy. Tara was treated the same as any other character besides the main three, and that's a better statement for equality than giving her special treatment. I love Tara, but I'd rather see Willow move on with Kennedy than bring her back from the dead. Paul730 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Giles' "I'd like to test that theory" line was his best moment, IMO. They even homaged it in the Season 8 comics, with Willow saying it to Amy. As for pissed off fans, I was really annoyed about Anya's death for a long time, but eventually I just accepted it. Apparently she's coming back in S8 anyway, albeit not permanently, so hopefully she'll get the send off she deserves this time. Paul730 19:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, why do you diss on Spike so much? I remember you said that Spuffy was a "jump the shark" moment before. What, is he never allowed to get some? :) What was wrong with Spanya? Personally, I think they have a great relationship (both centuries-old villains turned good by love) and their one-night stand was perfectly natural. Buffy and Xander treated them like shit, why shouldn't they turn to each other? It was even funnier when Anya tried to have a second round in Season 7 and Spike shot her down. Paul730 19:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was so not sharkish. Spike and Angel are totally different characters. She was sleeping with him because she was in self-destruct mode, not because she wanted to settle down and live happily ever after. She still hated him, but she identified with him because of the experiences they had shared. No other guy, not even Xander, could have understood what she was going through at that point in her life, but Spike did to some extent. I love Xanya too, and it would have been great to see them back together, but I think Xander is far more to blame than Spike for their demise as a relationship. Him and that stupid Bringer. Anyway, Heroes is on now, so bye. Paul730 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Anya wait around for Xander to decide if he wants to work things when he was the one who left her at the altar? The poor woman had to do something to make herself feel better. I count Xander's outrage at Anya sleeping with Spike as his worst moment on the entire show - he didn't have a moral leg to stand on. So what if Spike's an "evil soulless thing"? Anya killed people for way longer than Spike did and she chose to become a demon, so that makes her better than him how? (Lol, I just noticed that "I shall smite you with my sycophants" comment on your user page) Paul730 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry if I bit your head off. :P About those sources, do they establish notability? I'm wondering because one of the books is Gender Roles in Buffy or something, not Gender Roles in Pop Culture. But at the same time, it's still a secondary source, ie. one that is not created by the creators of the show. Paul730 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm convinced that the major Buffy/Angel characters are notable enough to have distinct articles. But I am getting a bit ahead of myself, since I've not even finished on the articles I'm editing now, nevermind later. And gay Xander? Not as ridiculous as you might think. Whedon was planning on making someone gay, and had Seth Green not left the show... Paul730 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you're totally not kidding about Buffy/Faith (Baith? Fuffy?) are you? There is sexual tension, that was deliberate on the part of the writers. Hmm, might flesh that out in my sandbox, since I'm sure there's sources. Spangel, all the way. Joss has even semi-confirmed they've done the deed. There's so much romantic/pornographic fan fic about those two, but I think it was more of a drunken, embarassing mistake that they both regetted the next day. :P Paul730 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Angel and Spike are quite obviously based a little bit on Louis and Lestat. I love all the "Fanged Four" flashbacks in Buffy and Angel, they should totally make a series of novels fleshing out their history. I'd rather read that than some "monster-of-the-week" story unconvincingly slotted into the continuity of Buffy Season 2, which is what most of the EU stuff is. Paul730 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite shows is all MotW storylines (Doctor Who). And there are loads of good MotW episodes in Buffy and Angels early seasons. But if they're all about character development, then there's no need to go back and write comics/novels into the continuity when the characters have already been established. They're still publishing novels set in Buffy Season 2, which was a good 8/9 years ago now. What's the point? You're just restricting yourself as an artist (or rather, the publisher is restricting the artist, in some cases). I'd rather see the Buffy expanded universe fill gaps in continuity, like Go Ask Malice (Faith's origin), Tales of the Slayer (stories of other Slayers), or Oz: Into the Wild (Oz's story after he left). I'd even like to see the EU stuff establish it's own continuty, like with Dark Congress and Queen of the Slayers, which are basically alternate non-canon Season 8s. What's the point of reading MotW stories set in Season 2, when we can just watch the real Season 2? They should be more ambitious. Paul730 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Heroes has multiple episode-spanning story arcs in it's first season and it's amazing. And I'm no fan of Lost, but that's a popular show and that's not MotW. Paul730 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for expanded universe novels and comics, I just wish the stories were a little more ambitious than "Buffy fights a possessed scarecrow this week" or something. Go Ask Malice is brilliant - because it's a diary, you really get inside Faith's head and find out what makes her tick. I wasn't even really a Faith fan until I read that book. The EU stuff should play to their strengths instead of trying to copy the show. And Ali Larter's character is my favourite in Heroes, she's this crazy single mother with a split personality and superstength. What's not to love?  :) Paul730 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't say I couldn't like Nikki (sp), but I just thought I'd mention that I do. I like most of them really, except Peter. He's so bland. From my experience, EU stuff is usually disapointing. There are some gems, but like you said, most of it just feels inferior because the real thing is better. That's why, I feel, they should do something original, like flesh out a minor character or experiments with formats (like Malice did with the diary). I think a lot of it suffers because the publishers don't know their audiences, assuming that Buffy fans are all thirteen year old goth girls or something. I'm not a Star Wars fan, but their EU material seems quite good, because they create entirely new characters and storylines, instead of just hiding in the shadows of the films. Paul730 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question... should "appearances" be written in past or present tense? Technically Michael/Buffy/whoever still appears in something when you watch it on DVD/TV, so is past tense right?

Michael appeared in the 2007 remake?/Buffy appeared in Angel season 1?

Michael appears in the 2007 remake?/Buffy appears in Angel season 1?

Paul730 04:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. A "was" in your sandbox made me wonder, that's all. It's changed now. :) Paul730 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I wrote like three paragraphs of somebody's appearances in past tense once and was like "oh, shit". Paul730 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Oh well, thanks for trying. :) If it's Staking Her Claim: Buffy as Trangressive Woman Warrior, then don't bother, cos Erik already sent me that. BTW, where should academic studies stuff go (ie, stuff about her being a feminist icon etc)? In a critical reception/cultural impact section? What should I call it, do you think? Paul730 04:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, since you forgot to sign your message. Tut tut, SineBot will be all over you. ;) I'm really sure how the section will turn out. It's just I'm reading stuff about how Buffy is so important and she revolutionises female characters yadda yadda... not stuff that's suitable for characterization really, so I was going to make a new section about cultural impact? Oh well, I'll decide after I write it up, or even when I know what I'm using from the sources I've got. Anyway, night. Paul730 04:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I prefer the "Dawn years" of Buffy because the stories are more adult. The drama is more life or death than it was in high school. Also, I like Anya, Tara, and Spike more than Cordy, Angel, and Oz. Angel and Cordy are better in Angel and Oz was never developed to his full potential (although he's coming back in the comics, yay!). I generally prefer shows when they get into the later seasons. I like later South Park because the stories are more extreme and political, and the character traits are more defined (Cartman's bigotry, Randy's stupidity). Although, that said, DP (my illogical pet name for Desperate Housewives) has never lived up to its initial brilliance. I hope they pull their socks up for season 4. Paul730 05:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DP is still a great show, but the first season is the best. Season 2 suffered from a ridiculous mystery (a woman tries to hide her fugitive son by moving to a close-knit suburban neighbourhood?) and Season 3's story was wrapped up early because of Marcia Cross' pregnancy, so they basically had to pad out the rest of the season with crap. I used to watch Lost, but stopped caring because of the non-existant pace and dull characters. I respect the deep psychology and intelligent writing of it, but as weekly entertainment, I just don't have the attention span. Each Buffy season was a self-contained story, wrapped up at the end for fear of cancellation (except 6, where they were guaranteed another year), but they still managed to forshadow future stories like Dawn's arrival and Dark Willow years before they happened ("Restless" is a stunning episode in retrospect). Angel got a little more ahead of itself, which meant the last season felt kind of rushed when they got cancelled (comic book continuations make everything better). Paul730 05:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Zythe are working on the Jack Harkness lead. Neither of us are experts, and Zythe's worried about failing FAC again if there's too much repetition with the actual article. Got any general lead advice? Paul730 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I've been talking to Dev920 about the Andrew article. She refuses point blank to justify the plot section. Paul730 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-zealous sycophants FTW. I swear, we're running up the tab with these nicknames for ourselves and our conduct. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, perfect! I saw that you quoted me about your mother's editor, too. This is like our own WP:BJAODN, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, I could update it some. I've been contacted by a "lawyer" who represents a rapper who has a cameo on American Gangster. I've been accused of WP:OWN plenty -- at Cloverfield and by the executive-producer editor. Maybe I should go through my contribs, see what gems I can dig out... and yeah, I've been missing out on page updates the way you have your layout now. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this might interest you. You can change the category to something else if you want. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wonder if some editors avoid responding, thinking that they'll be left alone as a result. Makes me think of the baddie in Grandma's Boy... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, I didn't even go visit the article, but I'm not surprised that a comedy film would have a Plot section that's too long. In regard to the AfD process, I've contacted editors who previously recommended to delete about the update to the page (since it was sloppy before), and I think it's likely to be merged now. Haven't gotten involved with a conflict like this in some time... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw how he responded, and I wasn't interested in aggravating an admin. Didn't like the way he didn't respond to my question -- he was just like, "Trust me." Wonderful... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was my tone. Downright condescending, yeah? I'm gonna be calling it a night soon enough... the merge seems more likely to take place, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I find it difficult to explain the nature of the film industry (and how it's covered) in one paragraph. It's the kind of knowledge that you understand after a while, you know? Like the feeling in your guts backed by your experiences. Anyway, I'm gone for the night (took a shower to smell nice and stuff), so later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bignole, a while ago you were giving us tips on how to rewrite the Pauline article to exclude the repetition and in-universe summary. I have finally got around to doing it, it's in my sandbox at the moment. It needs polishing up in places for spelling and typos, but this is basically what it will look like. I'd appreciate if you could have a read of it sometime and let me know what you think. Thanks  :) Gungadin♦ 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to read this and also for your help. I left you a reply on my talk page, but just wanted to say thanks here too in case you don't check it :) Gungadin♦ 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice job on critically breaking down the film! It seems, though, that the reviews are a bit negative for what is suggested by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. (Should these ratings be provided somewhere in there?) I don't know what you came across, but the balance seems to suggest that it was a film with a divided response, rather than a 3/4-ish weight of positive/negative criticism. I don't know if the negativity should be scaled back or more positivity should be added -- it depends on how you went through the reviews and what you found. Also, I'm sure that some copy-editing could be done, but I'm just addressing the content at the moment in case it needs further change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm looking at the film's RT ratings now. RT's Cream of the Crop is 63% (the ones from major news outlets), while Metacritic is 70%. So maybe the balance is more appropriate than I previously thought, though I think a little more positivity could be used. Statistically speaking (since I took a class in this), the more reviews that are drawn upon, the more normalized the average review is. That's why it's acceptable to poll a few hundred or a few thousand people in the United States to provide a certain political perspective or what-have-you of this entire country, with a +/-3% deviation. I think this is somewhat reflected with RT's Cream of the Crop and Metacritic, both of which are fairly selective. 244 reviews for Batman Begins is a lot, which suggest to me fanboyism. Hell, a big film like The Bourne Ultimatum only has 194 reviews. Transformers has only 186 reviews, though, so I don't know if I'm reading it right. I think that the percentages should be mentioned from both RT (normal and Cream) and Metacritic, but I think that the balance of critical reaction should favor RT's Cream and Metacritic. I think this would mean just a little more positivity. Also, I am thinking about drawing from related articles at BOM -- we have a pretty simple box office paragraph, so I might go through the headlines to see if there was anything unique or notable about its theatrical performance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, off the topic, but have you seen the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot before production? I recall that you've been on the fence before about how to order an article, so maybe you could offer a fresh perspective regarding the order and if a specification needs to be implemented in the guideline or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic is Rotten Tomatoes' competitor in a sense. I think that it may help in case RT's percentage is questioned. With an alternative like Metacritic, readers can compare the two review aggregators. Of course, we could exclude the aggregators from the Reception section entirely... that'd be an interesting direction to take, since I've seen a couple of concerns that their mentions are not truly encyclopedic. People may be unaccustomed to the lack of percentages, though, even if there's a link to them in External links. What do you think about that? Discuss with others, or just implement it and see how it goes over with others? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You word it well enough, and I've just been accustomed to see the percentage mentioned. I guess I've found it helpful because it generally explains the balance of reviews in the Reception section. Otherwise, someone could pick all positive or all negative reviews for a film. RT and Metacritic provide a rule of thumb in balancing reviews, so I think I'd rather have them included. Let's get Alientraveller's opinion, though... and whoever else who wants to weigh in. Mention it on the talk page for Batman Begins, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think Metacritic would be appropriate for comparison. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might be able to find more specialized reviews for you, like a review from Film Comment. These reviews might be a little more critical than stuff like Time. You want me to fetch some of these for you? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, haha. I think that the Reception section is long enough, but I think you should use your discretion to shape the content accordingly. Might not find anything good, but I'll have to take a look. I'm busy doing a project tonight, researching a company for a career placement class. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain I have the Batman Begins issue of Total Film. Want me to dig it out, tell you what it says? Paul730 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, went to the bother of going through a pile of old magazines, found the BB one, was about to start quoting the review when I realised "Duh, they have a website..." Lol, here's the entire review. Paul730 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that Buffy always had crap ratings - most people dismissed it as silly because of the title. I also heard that the ratings dropped in the last two seasons because it was "too depressing". For God's sake, the characters grew up and so did the show. I hate these people who are just stuck in the high school years, it's like "move on!" So yeah, Buffys a cult show, as I imagine Smallville is too. Paul730 04:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Tribune. Seems to be a good 3/4-star review to use. This stood out for me: "It's one of the strengths of this movie that, despite the enormous risks Nolan takes in going for darker tones and Frank Miller-style noir touches, he's able to comfortably mix the tormented drama and revenge motifs with light hearted gags and comic book allusions, including a barrage of arch cracks and takes from Michael Caine as Wayne's truly unflappable butler, Alfred." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize for not being around too much... life takes priority, you know. I'll be back in editing mode soon -- I have to, 'cause my Google Alerts and RSS feeds are piling way up. Probably gonna have to do a lot of headline dumping when I'm able to sit down and contribute more than just passing edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did that last Sunday night and wound up staying up till 2 AM (where I had to get up at 7:30 for class Monday) to finish a project. Trying to better get in the mindset of taking care of academic priorities before my wiki-priorities -- obviously, with my lack of contribs, there's quite a few academic priorities. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you might be able to see from my user talk page, I seem to have inadvertently gotten into a tiff with Blofeld. During my attempts to tag for the task forces, I decided to start on the Argentine task force and came upon a giant mess at Category:Argentine films - the vast majority of the pages were italicized (aka redirects) that led to the lists like Argentine films of the 1950s. Essentially, almost every Argentine film had an article, but most of them merely redirected to the lists. Blofeld's solution to this is to just delete the cats from these articles, but I think that it's a big problem to keep vast swathes of redirect articles that are essentially acting as placeholders instead of redirecting for structural reasons such as titling or merges. If we don't have a real article for film X, it should have a red link, so that we know that we need to do that article. To get an idea of the damage, go to any of those Argentine films of the X's articles and look at the "What links here" section (I recommend the 500 at-a-time option); you'll see the damage. Should these go to mega-AfD? Also, I seem to have been a little less tactful (a weak spot of mine); would you be interested in joining the discussion? I'm just concerned that while Blofeld has many ambitious projects, most of which are useful, oftentimes the problem with things like this is that there is no community consultation - he just initiates it and then gets very defensive when editors like myself question the implementation. This is especially irksome in cases like this and in the past with the categorization mess, where mass reversion can take days. Anyway... Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your question on my talk page. Girolamo Savonarola 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the problem: the list pages really should have all films linked. The problem is that this makes the redirects into self-directs, which is not permitted per guidelines. But if the articles aren't linked, how are editors to know that a) an article exists, and b)that there is no real article? Girolamo Savonarola 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heres my response to Giro: Right Giro. I have spent the last day making over 1,000 edits leaving a beautiful clean category. Hurrah for Blofeld. I am only too aware of my misthinking over six months ago when I thought of using categories. And I see what you mean about the inefficiency of it I wouldn't have had to spend the last day cleaning it up. However I do think you overreact about many things. Basically all that needed doing was to take out the categories. Now what was all the fuss about sitting on a fence and afd's and having to make several thousand edits yourself? And why make all the project aware of my mistake?? It paints me in a bad light. Surely you know an editor like me wouldn't lazily leave it you to fix -it was my problem so I quite rightly fixed it myself. I made about two errors since my time on wikipedia - one with the American categories and too with this. Note both were well over six months ago and the vast majority of my edits are in fact efficient and of major benefit to the encyclopediia. I have developed into a top editor in many peoples eyes - a lesser editor wouldn't have corrected a past mistake like this so quickly. When I said about constantly complaining from other editors I to be honest was talking about you only. 99% of comments have been positive - my barnstars reflect this. Several people have even said I am now one of the best on wikipedia. A lot changes in six months and I feel its time you started to recognize that most of my work indeed has been efficient and that my contribution is of major benefit not only to films but to the whole project. Surely you have noticed many of my constructive editing ranging from Itlaian films and actors to Building the List of American films. All of it including List of British films etc was created by me and I even if you don't feel proud of my work on here and I know many agree. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the missing List of Itlaian films and be horrified what on earth??? Can't you see that the page hasn't been touched for like a year???? Only A is listed and even then there is clearly message stating the intention to sort the films for notability eventually and take out all the films which are not notable enough for an article. It isn't November 2006 anymore Giro. Its September 2007 and things have moved on for the better . Please see my in my present editing state not when I was beginning on films a year ago thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct about deleting the cover of the DVD as simply eye candy, but your recent attempt to delete another image is not supported by you claims in the Fair use article. Please leave the images as they are. There is single part of the article that the image referes to. It is used as context to the entire plot as well as the Image of Superman flying. Under your explanation there would be no reason at all for an image. Fair use is not being taken advantage of or misused. Simply deleting the image after I have made it clear it should remain without descussing on the talk page is uncivil. Please understand I am not atempting to disrespect you, however I do not agree with your assement at this time of those images. Thank you.--Amadscientist 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it clear how I feel about the images. Please refrain from simply warring against me when the images have stood for weeks. Your continued deletions are edit warring and other GA articles have just as many photos. Superman's flying is not in question or how many images of Superman there are in an article about Superman.--Amadscientist 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about the edit warring is understood but all wars have someone who starts it by not respecting the opinions of others. I simply disagree with you on this particular edit. The tone in your messages boarders on uncivil and many of your edit summerries are plainly uncivil. There is no need to be mean.--Amadscientist 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to "piss you off" or asign fault. There are many ways to deal with a situation of this type without continued delete and reverts. Thank you for using the talk page. Have you considered deleting any of the other images?--Amadscientist 23:33, 12

September 2007 (UTC)

I have added to the talk page. As for the no no of placement of the image, you are incorrect. It is impossible to place images next to all text. More importantly than that is the fact that the images do not state a particlular part of the movie. These images are used as context and are directly linked to the plot section for context. This is done in many articles that have reached FA. There is nothing wrong with it....in the plot section, as it does mention that there is a relationship between the two charcters in the plot and that is enough. Thank you for you civility, perhaps I can locate a better image for production than the one used. I believe production does not need images of the characters but of the production itself. In many articles production art is used and adds greatly to the article--Amadscientist 23:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Project Film, as well as admin that I have discussed this with, yes other articles do indeed have influence on the style and format of all film articles. I have discussed the cintext on the talk page. The main reason this article did not pass GA was unstable history. You continue to make major deletions or in one case refused to allow the deletion of a section that nobody would work on that had no references. I had redone that section but it was simply deleted as well. All articles may be different but that is not what Wikipedia wants. They want articles to be similer in format.--Amadscientist 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast sections are exceptable but not suggested by style guide lines. ( I personaly don't like them as lists.)All parts of the article are important. Images are needed for these articles. It is stated in all guidelines. Look this article is a mess. I was attempting to follow wikipolicy in regards to film articles but you have locked on to a completely different view. Articles in Wikipedia are apundamt but there are very few with the quality to pass beyaond a B rating. We both are looking to improve the article but seem to have very defferent views on how to go about it. I will back away from the article for 24 to 48 hours and let you do what you feel is appropriate but I find even the image size too small. This is currently a debate on Wikipedia as to what is the appropriate size for images since screen resolutions have increased dramaticaly. That is another difference between our views. The most important thing is the article and improving it to advance it's rating.--Amadscientist 00:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything you say is relevant or true. You are now arguing for the sake of arguing. Many of your ideas of what makes a good article are changing and I have even noticed your ideas are not completly agreed on on the Project Film talk page. Sorry but yes if it works in one article it can be used in another. It doesn't have to be used ....but it can. Your need to edit others seems to over ride your other efforts. Image size is changing but you seem bent on attempting to keep it the way it was. Tings change, be willing to change as well.--Amadscientist 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You overexagerate. As it shows above, I said not everything you say is relevant or true. That was as civil as it can be said. I did not disrespect you the way your edit summeries have. You seem to forget that Wikipedia is not just for members that have preferences but for everyone. You seem bent on making this a fight so have your last word if you must but I am done with this conversation. It is not productive. As intellegent as you seem to be you also seem very irrational.--Amadscientist 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images are a matter of opinion, as is many aspects of Wikipedia. Things change as consensus changes but to be blunt the size of images on the Superman Returns article are very small and most people do not have resolution that shows them larger. At any rate as much of what you said that I found irrelevant and untrue I have a good deal of respect for you regardless. I just do not like anyone stating what has to be on a site that takes consensus to be the most important thing. You may simply be using guidlines that are no longer deemed worthwhile. That may or may not be true, but I felt it important enough to mention.--Amadscientist 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]