| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bignole. |
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
|
Want to learn how to properly archive? |
| I reserve the right to archive talk discussions at my leisure, but will make sure the discussions are closed before I do. Thank you. |
Spidey
How about reading what I said - there was an innacuracy - mentioning more about Mary Jane had nothing to do with it - the problem was the timeline was screwed up - so it looked like characters were doing one thing, when in fact it was completely different. This is only a small amount of extra words - but the grammar, spelling, and facts have been fixed - so you can make it less text - heavy, but don't screw up the plot line in 100 different ways (off the top of my head one would be Peter started dating Gwen before MJ broke up with him).danielfolsom 04:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- First of all - there were spelling mistakes and small grammar mistakes, second of all - try to give me some time to respond - my internet is acting crazy (painfully slow - I've speant like 15 minutes trying to get past an edit conflict on the talk page)danielfolsom 05:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just said that I was having trouble loading pages - and I'm trapped trying to revert and trying to reply on the talk page without getting into an edit conflict - so there's not way I'm going to list all the vocab words that you need to work on - I'll see if I have time later when the server has cooled off.danielfolsom 05:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I used a program simmilar to word - but - as to the first part - I'M TRYING TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING!! That's what I keep saying - my computer's going slow so I get an edit conflict- so between trying to reply, trying to revert, and trying to fix the computer - I dont' have time to pick a bunch of words out.danielfolsom 05:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. - now I have precedency on this - since technically 3rr applies.danielfolsom 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I hate to do this - but I'm going to temporarily (10 hours max) enforce 3RR - I just want some time to shorten my version - since length is your biggest problem - and then we can have a correct timeline, with correct grammar, and correct length. So I'm going to fix it - then when I'm done I'll tell you and wait for a response.danielfolsom 05:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, 3 is not allowed- second, I'm not trying to block you, I'm just saying give me some time to reduce it - and we'll go from there, it's not using a rule to win an argument - it's using a rule for the purpose of the rule - trying to make Wikipedia better by not getting in a revert war - now I'm almost done - so lemme just upload it and then we can go over it and possibly integrate the two versions a bit more if neccessary. I'm currently under 700 words - but I might be able to go lower.danielfolsom 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I hate to do this - but I'm going to temporarily (10 hours max) enforce 3RR - I just want some time to shorten my version - since length is your biggest problem - and then we can have a correct timeline, with correct grammar, and correct length. So I'm going to fix it - then when I'm done I'll tell you and wait for a response.danielfolsom 05:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. - now I have precedency on this - since technically 3rr applies.danielfolsom 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I used a program simmilar to word - but - as to the first part - I'M TRYING TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING!! That's what I keep saying - my computer's going slow so I get an edit conflict- so between trying to reply, trying to revert, and trying to fix the computer - I dont' have time to pick a bunch of words out.danielfolsom 05:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just said that I was having trouble loading pages - and I'm trapped trying to revert and trying to reply on the talk page without getting into an edit conflict - so there's not way I'm going to list all the vocab words that you need to work on - I'll see if I have time later when the server has cooled off.danielfolsom 05:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Bignole, I'm just referring to Eddie as Venom in the Spider-Man 3 plot, because that is his official name for the film, even though he;s never called by it [I agree with U on this]. In all the official interviews and video blogs of the film's cast and crew, he is credited as Venom and that's why he's Venom in my plot.GPanesarJatt 12:33, 6 May 2007
Man, all these plot-related edits and discussions... I need to see this film already. It's captioned this weekend, so I'll finally get to see it and not be so aversive to this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Section Break
Ok - it's now less words than what the previous summary was (in all fairness - only by about 10, but still). I removed the wedding ring stuff, and the hang glider stuff, and maybe a few more extras - and I also tried removing the Harry restaurant scene - but it seemed to important - I mean that's where Peter realizes Harry is the Green Goblin and he comes to think that MJ is dating the Green Goblin knowingly. But I'll just wait for your response on the talk page.danielfolsom 06:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh ok - 4 - but again, I'm not planning on reverting you - I was just trying to do what we both wanted while avoiding the continuance of a revert war.danielfolsom 06:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I responded on talk - lol, ok, my fingers on the revert button (jk ... maybe)06:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Waitasecond - what this guy is doing is essentially vandalism - did you see the two edits before mine?danielfolsom 06:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I responded on talk - lol, ok, my fingers on the revert button (jk ... maybe)06:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- OH by the way, don't worry about the heated convos - if anything that was me venting frustration at my computer torwards you. we're def. cool - waitasecond - did that guy steal my signature?! (see phrase before section break)danielfolsom 07:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he is your clone - your Ben Reilly. Wait til he starts editing your page, sleeping with your significant other and eating all your chips. I was thinking of creating a doppleganger account just to copy your sig. LOL (joke). Nice to see the problem fixed itself. I am off to the first showing of SM3 tomorrow. Should I just assume Harry is hubba-hubba for Peter, and that Peter has unresolved Daddy issues that only dressing up in costumes that "bind in the crotch" can help address?
I guess I will find out. :D Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikiowning of Spider-Man 3
The section is split into paragraphs depending on the type of information presented in each paragraph, rather than mere number of sentences. There is no formalism in Wikipedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I have noticed that the early reviews of the movie were much more positive. A few days ago the movie got more than 70% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps the article should mention the ongoing shift in opinions. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the article is going very well. How's the critical reaction section going for Spider-Man 2 btw? Alientraveller 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, we're doing well with 3. I hope it can pass GA in June. Alientraveller 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd go for GA first, we need to see awards and nominations and the DVD release to be added. Not to mention the DVD can cut down on many citations. Alientraveller 17:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Er, I don't like it. Star Wars has its own style which works well, but Spider-Man really is based in plot and characterisation, and I personally prefer production as something to understand Raimi's work as a director who bought humanity to characters. Alientraveller 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll go along with it. But I guess it's just my work ethic: when I watch a DVD, I always watch a film first before the special features. But I'm weak willed, and I'll go along with it. But if you dare touch LOTR... (laughs)
I massively enjoyed the film by the way. I guess after watching it and Superman Returns that the modern dilemma of filmmakers and superheroes is that they have more depth than most action heroes. Maybe we were all spoiled by Batman Begins and how it masterfully interwove all its themes in flashbacks first. Alientraveller 16:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Peter or Spider-Man, doesn't matter for the costume to me. I plan to dig up some information on Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy: thank Jesus she worked. In all, it was Sandman for was superflous for me after Venom takes over the vengeance theme, even if Church did well (and he did remind of Karloff in fact). Alientraveller 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
So I'm writing my information on Gwen Stacy, and I feel it is quite anorexic in the article. What do you think: "As Gwen Stacy, Bryce Dallas Howard had the trouble of portraying a character whom many fans knew as Peter Parker's first love in the mainstream comics continuity, yet had the role of being another woman in his life in the film. Howard strived to create a sense that Gwen could potentially be a future girlfriend for him, and that, "I wasn't acting like some kind of man-stealing tart."[1] Howard performed many of her stunts, unaware that she was pregnant.[2]" Alientraveller 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Spiderman 3 Warning
Hey again, so I've been looking at the history of the sp3 article, and i'm starting to wonder if the warning in the article (the comment) is provoking vandalism. I mean it just seems like a lot of people are adding weird details (I believe one edit was "weight Sandman gained in muscle") - but that could be just because it's a popular movie. If it is provoking vandalism however, frankly I'm not smart enough to figure out another way around it, but you seem like you might be, sigh - don't you love trying to stop vandals from editting super-popular articles? Haha, well hey, just a thought.danielfolsom 20:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Eternal Links in The Bourne Ultimatum
With regard to my external links that you deleted for The Bourne Ultimatum article, could you give me a little more detail as to why you felt they were "linkspam"? Although I understand that Wikipedia is "not a mere directory of links" I also feel that the content on that particular post was not only relevant to the film but had information that would be of interest to Wikipedia users.
I can assure that when I link to interviews I have done with actors or directors, it is not my intention to "spam" Wikipedia. Any links will (hopefully) be informative and there to increase knowledge about a particular film or subject. For example, I take exception to the user who said he would "hunt down" links I had posted. I am not a spammer and don't intend to be one.
Although I use Wikipedia a lot for reference, I'm fairly new to the business of editing and debating the merits of an article, so any further advice or feedback on these edits would be appreciated. Icerve (talk • contribs) 05:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks
Appreciate the heads-up over the spoilers; trying to avert my eyes here and there... the most I've gathered so far is that Peter and MJ are not "together" at the end of the film, and that the villains aren't really named in the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
In case you noticed the password notification, this is why. Admins' passwords got exploited, and the Main Page got deleted. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Aqua FAC
Hey, nice work nominating it Bignole! I just supported it. Davey4 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, maybe so. Either way if it fails this time, it will be a better article by the time the review is done. So it is great nonetheless! :) Davey4 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Nelson Mandela
Thanks for the review comments! Zaian 13:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Calista Flockhart would be perfect as Skeletor
I saw that headline today, but kind of hesitating 'cause it's rumor-ish. I'm sure that I could dig up the Variety headlines for this film tossing and turning in development hell, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Um, yeah, I would be keen to have Brad Pitt play my part in my life story, too. Amazing how the Sun spends 5 column inches to say nothing at all...Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Rustic encounters
Yep, I saw them before... kind of interested to see what kind of style Favreau is going to give the action scenes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Did you see the spy shots of Iron Monger? He and Iron Man have a showdown in an empty street a la Matrix Revolutions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder how many villains Iron Man is gonna deal with, though? Hopefully just this Monger dude and The Mandarin. It'd be pushing it to do more. Also wondering how realistic Favreau's gonna be, since The Mandarin has these crazy power rings... and there's also Fin Fang Foom, a recurring villain. Just wondering what he has planned for the trilogy, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Haven't heard anything at all about it. Shaun Toub was rumored to be The Mandarin, but he's Yin Sen instead. (Makes me want to go find the anonymous IPs that added the rumor to the article and laugh in their faces.) I assume that Iron Monger and The Mandarin will probably have something in common in going against Mr. Stark. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm annoyed this morning already. I got an e-mail from Wikipedia saying that 217.24.248.126 (apparently from Amsterdam) attempted to request a password for my user account. While he/she shouldn't have gotten anything, I've changed my password to something else for good measure. And look at this disruptive editor's action at 300 (film) -- people like him are starting to abuse the logic that has been presented by the admin and others of similar minds. This may call for community action. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in the mood for a revolt... heh... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Here, I got a Bic lighter... but really, the logic of these pillar-huggers concerns me. The implication is that even in a Plot section, you can't have an image of an antagonist, even though that character would be prominent in the story, unless specific and detailed (i.e., longer than a sentence, which conflicts with our attempts to summarize the plot) information is provided. It's just seeming to me that Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit, but if the admin doesn't like your edit, there's no use. And I really don't want to jump through bureaucratic hoops to challenge these admins, seeing that one admin backed the other in that 3RR review. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I believe that's what they call a pipe dream. It just irritates me when a group of editors rationally discuss what images would appropriately illustrate components of the film, and an admin comes by with the swift judgment of, "Eh, no." The excuse is that they're enforcing policy, and they just don't "see" the rationale. I've argued a couple of times that single frames aren't critiqued by reviewers; it's either scenes or the whole film. I just think that if even if we dug up reviews in which a certain shot was repeatedly observed, we'd need at least two paragraphs' worth to have enough content to warrant the screenshot, and that extra text would be rather extraneous for encyclopedic purposes. It just seems like a lose-lose situation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've reported the admin for violating 3RR based on his most recent revert. I also explained that the images in question had fair use rationale attached, and there were presently several contesting editors who thought that the screenshots's rationale was acceptable. We'll see if the "copyright violation" reasoning comes into play despite this. If it does, that doesn't pose very well at all... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, I guess I ran into an edit conflict and closed out without realizing it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I was actually using that, but someone beat me to the punch. We'll see how it pans out... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have to admit, that just made my day. I'll be on my way now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- What a fucking elitist group. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I blame the weather. :) It's been crappy here in the Midwest. Ah, whatever, man... I don't feel like becoming Che Guevara. Don't want to be one of these users whose accounts get deleted, leading me to pop between anonymous IPs dropping off "anti-Wikipedia literature" on articles' talk pages. I really only like Wikipedia 'cause we all know it's a popular source of information, and the learning curve wasn't too hard to master. Admins are really only good for getting vandals blocked -- they ought not to be directly involved in content disputes, 'cause their privileges give them the edge. I think you've been blocked by an admin due to a content dispute once before, right? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse Me?!
Did you tell me to go and see the film myself (Spider-Man 3)? How can you be such a jerk?! F.Y.I., I saw the film the first day it came out! Why don't you go back in time and make it so you saw it the first day, then you won't be so jealous that I saw it the first day and you didn't, lol. 68.78.43.180 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And now, by adding a link, I will turn that clown-inspired frown upside down...POOF! -Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)`
Thanks
for fixing the "Lost" reflist just now :-) Jayen466 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Spider-Man 4
I left a message with Cbrown1023, the admin who last deleted the article, asking him what he thinks. I'm not sure if a redirect/full protection is commonplace, but we can ask when he responds. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I do snoop around, so I'm aware of Spider-Man 4. Speaking of which, when do you want to nominate Spider-Man 3 for GA? Third weekend just for box office context? I think the Release and Box Office sections can do with copyediting. Alientraveller 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Spiderman 3 overlinking of dates
Hi - I've reverted that edit, as the dates had been linked per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day : If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. Hope you agree with this approach, best regards, --Oscarthecat 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yo, Adrian!
I just saw Rocky Balboa and really liked it, so I checked out the film article. I noticed the GA status, so I was expecting some quality content. However, both Casting and Items and references from previous films are mostly uncited and loaded with trivial information, not being backed by any kind of real-world importance. Not to mention that there's an indiscriminate table of box office information by the weekend. It really does not seem to meet Good Article standards; I'm considering de-listing it. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Watery FAC
I've made some suggestions on improving the clarity of the content. I also corrected some punctuation issues so I didn't have to write about each spot where the punctuation was off. I can help revise the article with some of the sentence structuring if you like. Also, shouldn't the article be at Aquaman (pilot)? It's not actually a whole TV program, ya know... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use
Sorry, went out to breakfast, just got your message. (Alaska time, its only 8:15 am here).
My stance on this comes from our mission filed with the IRS to gain our non-profit status, our policy and the WMF's stance. We are not here to create the best enycyclopedia possible. That would require abandoning all claims of copyright whatsoever and putting in full resolution images of everything. We are here to build a free content encyclopedia. The goal of wikipedia is not wikipedia. It is to create a compendium of knowledge to be given out. The website doesn't matter, although its nice. We are here to give away our content to everyone, and to give them the same rights to do what they see fit with it so long as they give others those same rights as well. Thats free content. Fair use images allow no derivitives, dont allow the person downstream from us the ability to use that image in any way they see fit. That is 100% counter to the goals of free content, of wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation. These images are a cancer, because the compromise our use of the GFDL. Suddenly not all our content is liscensed under it. This seems completely backwards. If projects that are better developed then ours, the de encyclopedia (second most pages, but whereas the majority of en pages our stubs, the average length of a de article is greater, their content is somewhat better developed then ours) can excise all fair use images, then there is no reson we can not as well. -Mask? 16:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- You deal with the hand that you're dealt. To be honest, I dont care much for arguments over whether it's fair or not (in terms of differing copyright policies, not as in fair use) because we have tougher copyright laws here. That matters precisely zero to our overal goal of a freely reproducible, freely modifiable encyclopedia. We're playing a game of poker, dealt a starting hand, we play with that, not take more cards because the other player was given a better starting hand. We are here for free content. Period. Fair use has been tolerated by en for a while now, and now is slowly losing support in some areas. I hope it will eventually be all areas, but to be honest I dont see that happening. So I'll settle on only keeping those were it is the most justifiable. Notice I don't remove them everwhere. I let company logos stay, I let images in episode articles (not lists) stay. Simply because I know the community still supports that to an extent. Do I want them gone? Yes. Do I think that will happen? No. Am I going to waste my time trying to force those out anyway? Not on your life. -Mask? 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe, that to make Wikipedia the best "free" encyclopedia, we have to sacrafice all non-free content. Did the conversation get to boring so you had to make a joke, or did you just say that and intend it to be a serious comment? Because that's either a brilliant parody, or you have serious issues defining "free" and based on that no longer find you informed enough to continue this conversation. -Mask? 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
How did you make this?
Hey Bignole, can I use this comment leaver? I would like to know how to use one.
Oh yah. I've been wondering this. On comments and talk pages, is there a way that my name and date is automaticaly left after my comment instead of me manualy typing it out each time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Pepin (talk • contribs)
- You do know that it says you're an admin under "About Me" on your user page? Traitor. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've extended the olive branch to Ed after cooling off over the image situation. I've tried to explain the situation, and hopefully a different approach can be taken in adhering to the policy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks; probably better to usher in a new age. I'll also be seeing Spider-Man 3 captioned tonight, so I'll soon be back in the game. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I love what you've done with the place
Just remember to add speedy deletion tags to sub-articles when you're done. Regarding Aquaman, I like it so far but I'm not so good with copyediting, I just think it's interesting content-wise though. In the meantime, I really would like to speed up work on E.T. in time for its 25th anniversary. Can I do it? Alientraveller 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
E.T. was released on June 11 1982, but I'd rather shoot for FA quickly. I have plenty of citation material to sort out first too. Alientraveller 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated E.T. for GA, and I'd like you to either review it, or give me a quick mini-peer review, before I snap my fingers and nominate it for FA? Yay? Alientraveller 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, I feel like Elliott on his bike. I've nominated it for FAC, and I've answered a couple of your queries: I pulled out another negative review, and created a Popular culture section. Alientraveller 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Smallville wiki links
Hello, Bignole. I see that the links to the Smallville wiki have been removed from the Season pages due to them being in the headers. This is understandable, but unfortunate, as the links generated interest and potential volunteers for the wiki. Would it be appropriate to move a link to the External links section instead? I see a wikicities link there, but the Smallville wiki is a whole 'nother animal. The wikicities site is basically a fansite that the owner created, and it is bereft of content and very not-user-friendly. Even though anybody can sign up, he decides who he gives permission to edit, and basically has sole discretion of the content (most of which he copied from the SV Wiki). I replaced the one on the Season 4 page, but I thought I'd drop you a line to ask your opinion about how best to include links to the wiki. Marikology 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Spider-Man 3 review
I just got back from the film. I thought it was good, but not great. The individual storylines were fine on their own, but I think together, it was too much. Should have been a maximum of two for the film, though I did like Harry's psychological manipulation of Peter Parker the most. The other two storylines weren't as personal; if they had room, they should have developed Flint Marko's family crisis some more. I know there were scenes that were left on the cutting room floor. As for Venom, well... I don't think with the screen time that Grace's character got, that there was enough anger or rage developed for him. Seems like that could have been a stand-alone movie on its own. I did like the tag-teaming of Spidey and Harry against Venom and Sandman, though Venom seemed oddly missing for long moments while the good duo took on Sandman. I kind of miss Doc Ock... I think his battle with Spidey entailed a lot of cool effects while still fighting close-range (especially with Spidey dodging the tentacles). Don't get me wrong, I thought the themes of Parker's personal issues played out well enough, but the way the villains were used were subdued, as the storylines' impacts canceled each other out. But yeah, now I can read the article! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- The train sequence is exactly what I was thinking about when I mentioned my preference for Doc Ock. That was real tension. I'm not sure where the film series can go now; I really would not want Carnage, honestly. My friends say he should be in the next movie, but I really don't see how it could play out. Carnage is like a poor man's Joker; psychotic, but not really a good foil to Spider-Man. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the studio will take advantage of the leftover symbiote in Dr. Connors' lab. Mysterio might be a good choice if they could change him up to make him more of an illusionist in a psychological sense (like Scarecrow, I guess) and have Spidey suffer delusions like seeing Mary Jane get harmed and not being able to do anything. Also, I just remembered The Lizard as a candidate, though I can't imagine what kind of interesting plot could come with him.
- One other thing that bothered me about the film -- what the heck influenced the symbiote to crash-land right next to Peter Parker? That seemed too random and a little too hard to believe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I pretty much exclaimed "Oh jeez" when Peter put his hair down after obliterating Sandman in the subway fight. I haven't always liked the comic aspect of the Spider-Man universe (though the stuff with J. Jonah Jameson was pretty funny). I guess I could see the purpose of "goofy" Parker and "dark, suave" Parker being an interesting mix, but it came up really odd on the screen. Some things like him flirting/bribing with the nightclub hostess should've been more emphasized than a cocky walk down the street. I guess his behavior was to keep the dark side relatively light-hearted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Dude! Random thought -- what the heck would happen if the symbiote took over a lion!?!?! That would be some kind of twisted. Yeah. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Crystal balling
I've responded to the admin and left a comment on the SM4 talk page. Perhaps people need to be aware that announcements do not ensure actual production, unlike the Olympics and Presidential elections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded accordingly. The deletion review clearly did not have a strong chorus of permitting recreation. The admin's summary itself even dismissed the argument as "moot" because he seemed to like what was put together by an editor, regardless of whether the film would take place or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that it needs to be demonstrated, outside of citing policy, that announced films do not qualify as expected events. Based on the projects that have lingered in development hell, future films do not come close to "almost certain" to take place. As you've seen, I've presented examples to show that these things aren't always fast-tracked. People can argue their interpretations of WP:CRYSTAL, and I think we ought to provide sufficient evidence that films are not a medium in which they can be scheduled or expected events. I don't know about using Halo or The Hobbit as examples, though... they haven't really been appropriately addressed since the cancellation of production. I have some examples of redirected articles at my link repository, such as Knight Rider or Magneto. Without presenting evidence of film fallibility, the arguments are going to be circuitous. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I recommend mentioning the essay on arguments to avoid. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This is stupid. The article is going to be the target of bullshit speculation (it already is, apparently) for months until something actually happens. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, based on their logic, we should go and create articles out of my Future articles subpage right now, even the one-headliners. Not sure where the threshold exists to meet sufficient documentation. I tried to lead with my vote to explain the why, but I guess people don't really bother looking at others' opinions. I don't want to have so much discussion in the AfD, though... it'll make the page too long-winded like a certain sequel trilogy AfD. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've commented on Shrek 4. This crystal ball issue needs to be brought up with WikiProject Films. I think it should be added to the style guidelines when it is most appropriate to create an article (with flexibility provided, of course). I'll mention the possibility and point to Spider-Man 4's AfD. I think it may be more appropriate to have film article editors share their opinions about that article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've informed the community at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Tried to remain neutral in pointing them there, but I'm not sure if I did the best job. :-P We'll see what opinions they have. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I've looked closer at Spider-Man 4 and the citing sucks. I just saw that both Blogcritic Magazine and Total Film basically point to the BBC article for the source, so there is no apparent reason to have them. This seems like potentially intentional exaggeration. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest... his cite fu is weak. I'm not sure where the idea of piling up the citations at the end of the article came from. It's like that gray world between in-line citations and having references at the end of the article. I salvaged a couple of items for the film series articles (length of script development and the studio's intent to move on, which wasn't made clear in the first place), but everything else seems redundant, even unto itself. Oh, well. AfD seems to be OK so far; hope it doesn't run into a no consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
They're all baked, I tell ya! *sigh* If it's kept through no consensus, I'm importing the stuff from the film series article. It's better than that mess an admin put together. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I fear that the impression of an AfD may lead editors like the most recent one to be like, "OH NOES!!!1 THE INFO WILL BE GONE FOREVER IF WE DO NOT KEEP THIS!" I was thinking last night, after seeing the decline of critical reaction for the third installment, and its box office run possibly being cut fairly short by the other tentpoles, Shrek and POTC 3. Meh, I just feel really reluctant to have this article at this stage, especially seeing the speculative edits that have been made. Maybe I should keep a subpage and just overwrite whatever crap is on there every once in a while... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- That was a lot of devoted speculation... haha. —
Aquaman
Hey Bignole, I thought of a really great idea. We should use this as the image in the information box, and then we won't need to logo or the screen capture, as this represents both quite well, and is probably better known. It would reduce the amount of fair-use images as well, which would be a plus for the feature review. Davey4 04:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh no I know, what I meant was we swap that for the other two (black logo and swimming picture), and have the new one where the black one was, and since the new one shows us everything we need to know, we don't need more than the one fair-use image anymore. Davey4 04:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh ok. I just thought since it is kind of "out there", maybe it would be a better fair-use image. Plus it shows the actor really clearly, which is something the article kinda lacks. Oh, and I'm not sure how much it has been dwnloaded don't know where you find that info. Davey4 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, if your not opposed to the idea, I'll think it over some more. Do you think the review has a good chance of passing, what still need to be done? Davey4 04:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- The quote box looks really really good! I agree with you Re: the reaction section, the release stuff is probably enough and is neutral. The info is comprehensive enough there, so people can draw there own conclusions from that. Davey4 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK true. Maybe we should mention that it also entered the Top 10 when released on the Video marketplace as well[1]. Davey4 04:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'll metnion that, and If I find a more comprehensive source, then we'll replace it. Also, what about the popularity of the trailr on youtube? Davey4 05:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I thought it may be ok to mention that it was one of the most watched videos before it was removed. I'm going to attempt to expand the filming section a little. Davey4 05:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Great work so far as well Bignole! Davey4 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I thought it may be ok to mention that it was one of the most watched videos before it was removed. I'm going to attempt to expand the filming section a little. Davey4 05:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'll metnion that, and If I find a more comprehensive source, then we'll replace it. Also, what about the popularity of the trailr on youtube? Davey4 05:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK true. Maybe we should mention that it also entered the Top 10 when released on the Video marketplace as well[1]. Davey4 04:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- The quote box looks really really good! I agree with you Re: the reaction section, the release stuff is probably enough and is neutral. The info is comprehensive enough there, so people can draw there own conclusions from that. Davey4 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, if your not opposed to the idea, I'll think it over some more. Do you think the review has a good chance of passing, what still need to be done? Davey4 04:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh ok. I just thought since it is kind of "out there", maybe it would be a better fair-use image. Plus it shows the actor really clearly, which is something the article kinda lacks. Oh, and I'm not sure how much it has been dwnloaded don't know where you find that info. Davey4 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Raul's opinion is supreme. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure if I would consider the prose compelling. Editors like you and I do just fine with finding citations and describing the information, but I think that the general weakness is that the information, even when it's lined up appropriately, doesn't quite flow in an encyclopedic fashion. I think sentences could be written to have smoother transitions, and there are parts of the article where it sounds like casual writing. For example, "Though it is unclear to what extent..." and "However, it was not picked up..." Maybe the "However" is fine, but examples of that kind of personal perspective, especially the uncertain kind, need to be more encyclopedic sounding. Maybe you could contact someone from the League of Copy-editing or whatever it's called, to help with the article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Cast
Yep... but the cast does need to be listed somewhere (section by itself preferable, not necessarily as a list, but within a section). I don't consider "starring Joe Blow and Nancy Smith" to be a cast section! And yes, I do realize that there won't be cast sections for some articles - thinking of some documentaries where just the narrator is mentioned, for example. If it's not clear that the cast is discussed in the article, I'm tagging it so that it can be either delineated from surrounding text, or added. SkierRMH 05:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Halloween, which also has the the stars listed in the first paragraph. Like I said, listed somewhere... but I do believe (personal opinion) that the non-stars (supporting cast, especially if they can be wikilinked) normally should get a mention in an article. SkierRMH 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Film series
I was brainstorming about how to improve Spider-Man film series today, and I have a few ideas. First of all, I was thinking that we could probably move most of Spider-Man (film)#Development here, as it's not directly relevant to the actual Spider-Man. Also, I noticed Spider-Man (Unfilmed Cannon version) in your contributions, and I don't think that the information is false. There is redundancy with the information in the first film's Development section. I was thinking that we could have a History section for the film series article and break it down into a few subsections. Also, I think that the plot summaries should be shortened even further, and maybe base new summaries on the official synopses of these films instead. In addition, we could create a table (a nice-looking one) that could display the box office information of the films so far, show their rankings in the U.S. and worldwide, and show how much all the films have made domestically and internationally. As for reviews, we should find reviews that address all three films if possible. There's a lot of reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, and I'm sure a few of them will say something about the overall opinion of the films so far. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- This also mentions another source that talks about similar information to what the unfilmed Cannon version article has said. We probably need to do more sleuthing than depending on Google to find this old information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I created a table of box office information at my sandbox. Any suggestions for the formatting or style? I know it's pretty simple, so any suggestions would be appreciated. Also, I might create one for % recreation with stuff like RT, Metacritic, and Yahoo!, but wasn't sure if that would be too promotional of these. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm trying to think of what we can do with the list of characters. I was considering a content fork to create a list of minor characters in the Spider-Man film series, but that's more maintenance. It seems like the list of characters for the film series is unnecessarily long and probably a little too detailed (especially with some GIPU coming through and expanding the descriptions). I could see if I can reformat the characters into a table, perhaps to have a "1" "2" "3" triple column to acknowledge what films the characters were in. Or is that also too much detail? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I'm trying to figure out... there are minor roles that may not necessarily appear in the main film articles, like Theresa Russell as Sandman's wife. A list would not be bad because it would be comprehensive, and if editors complain, the list is available with all the names. It'd be easier than a List of characters from Spider-Man 2 and two other lists for the other two films. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll start putting something together based on what you gave me, in the Sandbox. Plus, it would be a unique resource because it essentially compiles the cast of a film series, and not per film like a place like IMDb would do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, will you do that? I'm doing pretty rudimentary coding, and a list should look a little more stylish. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I just added citations for the reviews. I'm thinking about purging the prose in the Reception section and instead try to find reviews that observe the series in its entirety thus far. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't miss the posters. However, I'm not crazy about the primary image, either. Is there a more illustrative image for the series? I wish they had something like the artwork seen at The Transformers (IDW Publishing) but live action and all villains around Spidey. Back to the posters, I'm thinking about reformatting the Plots, but I'm not sure how. Should we stick with using the "main" template, or is there another way to highlight the film titles? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and followed your advice. I'm thinking that instead of the plot, we should have a one-paragraph "lead" describing each film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The serialized plots, especially the third film, which was basically copied from Spider-Man 3 before we scaled back until the film's release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I'm sort of intending to strip down this film series article, since I don't want to be too redundant with specific film detail. That way, we can focus on the overall reviews, and perhaps some contract information about the director/cast signing for three films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you recommend, then? A paragraph's worth of the story for each film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I remember the animated series, especially with Venom in that role. I do remember the tension because Brock knew Spidey's true identity. Just looking at the critical reaction wikitable, it's clear that they did too much at the end to wrap this up, yet at the same time keep it going. I was thinking about how all the storylines could have been much better on their own. With Sandman, Spider-Man could have used his public influence to encourage treatment for Sandman's daughter, getting Sandman to turn himself in. (Though with his sandy nature, he might need a special prison, and possibly have malicious elements of the government try to figure out how to duplicate his powers.) Harry Osborn, like I mentioned before, could have been like the animated series' Venom, especially if it was set up so that he had nothing to lose (or maybe went berserko like his daddy). I think there should have been a lot more backstory to Eddie Brock to show how corrupt he really was, and to have events that really enrage him and really exhibit that anger through the symbiotic suit. Ah, just stupid daydreaming, anyway. I probably have a more dramatic mindset, but I was thinking that the future films should be more about elements out of Spidey's control. Maybe the presence of Kingpin, who sets up fake crimes to distract Spider-Man while the true crimes take place somewhere else. Maybe that could evolve into the application of Spider Slayers somehow -- they'd be destructive and relentless. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the lead paragraph, added some overall critical reaction to the film series, and a little bit of genre-focused box office ranking information in prose. I think maybe we could do a third paragraph for critical reaction, and that would be enough to address all the films. Obviously, we also should expand the descriptions for the film subsections/links. Also, is there anything we can do with the "List indicator(s)" box? Re-format it or place it somewhere else? It's creating that unnecessarily blank region. All in all, though, I think we've turned this article into something definitely more respectable. This would definitely be a good launching pad down the road, like if they made Spider-Man 4 after all, we can collect Spider-Man 5 tidbits under a revised Future section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just had a pretty good idea to address the "List indicator(s)" box problem. I don't know if this would be too reliant on Spider-Man the first, but we could have a paragraph or two about the contractual obligations of the cast. This would fill in the gap created by the box. I'll have to dig up some citations to help out with that, but it seems possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but I might want to do Batman film series and Superman film series down the road... then we could smite Canceled Superman films in a most satisfactory manner. We could also provide information about the various failed Batman projects, like Batman Triumphant and Year One. But hey, one thing at a time, right? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I started film series guides for Batman and Superman. You're invited to help, but don't worry, you don't have to get involved if you don't want to. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I request that Rosemary Harris as Aunt May be moved up the cast list over most of the Daily Bugle staff. I can't do it as I'd muck up the table. Alientraveller 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
CineVoter
E.T.
I checked the suggestions page and it seems to only welcome new articles. How long before I should nominate it, just in case the FAC is successful? Alientraveller 16:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for all your work so far. I've addressed many of your concerns on the talk page. As for MacNaughton becoming unofficially cast, well, I'm not sure how to describe it, but the fact he auditioned, and then kept becoming called back to work with boys auditioning for Elliott, it was quite amusing watching the documentary, as I got the impression that Spielberg probably forgot to tell him he had the part. Alientraveller 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
He was discussing it in an interview: you know, 20 years later, he's got dreadlocks and rose-tinted memories of his only well-known film... Alientraveller 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I edited it with a more neutral stance: I'm a little bit of an assumer at times. Alientraveller 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, looking at the article a bit I think readers can generally assume what E.T. looks like: its hand is in the poster, its head is in that religion pic and the size of him is visible in the moon bike photo. Alientraveller 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thomas' audition is on the DVD, but I do not have PowerDVD. Do you have the DVD? Whether or not you do, I don't think it's necessary given we already have an image: we don't have to give in fully to a copyright Spartan. Alientraveller 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
She shoulda Said No FAC
Hi, I just wondered if you'd take another look at your comments - more commentary has come through since your last response, and I'm not sure if you're still watching. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Crystal ball
You're definitely on the right track. We can successfully implement this guideline by merging your Future films and reference guidelines into a new Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film-related articles) guideline. A film article that doesn't meet the guideline for an Upcoming film or an Unfinished film should be deleted or redirected. WP:CRYSTAL isn't going to fully apply in many cases, which is why I also refered to WP:CFORK. Since we already have a Spider-Man film series article that covers the specualtive and unconfirmed Spider-Man 4, WP:CFORK takes precedent. We can see that Spider Man 4 was created at 14:51, 9 May 2007 whereas the Spider-Man series article was created on 02:04, 14 November 2006. If SM4 does not meet the greenlight threshold, and a more appropriate article exists (SMS) a merge and redirect should occur. Your new guideline could take this into account. —Viriditas | Talk 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Question: is there a central repository for the guidelines you and Erik are working on? I would like to edit in one ___location. Should we create a subpage in the film project hierarchy? —Viriditas | Talk 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Film series revisited
I've put in a bit of work for the Batman film series article. I need to dig around for more information on Year One -- I can do that using Comics2Film or Access World News. I found Tim Burton: Interviews on Google Books that explains the background with Warner Bros.'s feature film rights to the superhero. Might be more books out there; online sources may be doubtful, considering how long ago it was. I just want to trace the production history up to Hamm's script being used, but I won't get into actual detail about the film Batman. This article would be good to use for whatever follows The Dark Knight (depending on the outcome of SM4). Looking back at The Dark Knight when it was Untitled Batman Begins sequel, it was probably created way too early, considering all the rumors that were on the article. Anyway, I have a couple of questions for the series article -- should we mention the 1966 Batman film? It seems like it was a film adaptation of the TV series and not really part of this current no-direct-source-material run. Also, should we have part of the character list available at all? I created a light table just to identify the Batman roles, since that would be the most important. Another question: How should the sections be sorted? Should we mention the first four films, delve into the failed projects, then mention the two Nolan films? Or should we just mention all the successful films, then follow up with the failed project section? If you see anything else that needs addressing, let me know. I will probably move it to Batman film series tomorrow -- which reminds me, is the name ok? Should it say live action? I know there are some animated "films" out there. Or should these be included, too? I'll probably do the Superman film series article in a couple of days, and we can load it up with future information instead of having Superman Returns#Sequel. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the 1966 film Batman isn't part of any particular theatrical series, just based on a TV show. It's just that, yeah, it's focusing on the modern day series, even though it's been rebooted. A fictional universe has been created in this theatrical realm. I'm not completely opposed to including the 1966 film, since I imagine there may be dissenters. How about this: We present the 1966 film as the franchise's foray into the theatrical realm? We can use it as a way to set the stage, have some brief history, then follow up with the first attempt in the form of The Batman? I'm not sure about incorporating it for the Reception tables, though... such information would not be miniscule and not as comparable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- One thing that I realized that all the "modern" films had in common is that they're Warner Bros. films. I don't know if this is something that can be applied to alter the article's title. We can still make mention of the serials and the TV show spin-off in the article, but it'd help shape a focus on this series under the Warner Bros. label. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I duplicated the references where it seemed to be on a new topic -- development, filming, and release/reaction, roughly. Does this work? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the reason that Joe's been added a couple of times is that he was in a flashback scene (not extended) when he was picking on Peter Parker as a bully. Doesn't really count, anyway... it's stock footage. The other three italicized actors should have had extended flashbacks or hallucinated roles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- That would make sense. I was wondering why he was listed at IMDb's credits. I'd say keep him; no reason to doubt IMDb's listing post-release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Spider-Man 4
Hi there. I moved your comment about merging Spider-Man 4 to Spider-Man film series on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to the top of the May section, per the instruction on the page. I hope that's okay! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at User:Erik/Batman film series, Batman & Robin actually did better than I expected, having heard so much negativity about it. (Even saw it myself as a wee lad, but my taste in film was yet refined back in the day.) I'm not saying that Spider-Man 3 is really comparable, but there's an obvious dip in critical acclaim. I also read a poll (bona fide, actually!) that asked people if they would see Spider-Man films without Raimi or Maguire returning, and a good portion said no. If the studio wants to do a second trilogy, they would need some serious talent to wow audiences. I'm still pissed about Arad convincing Raimi to include Venom -- he wasn't just used badly, he was used up, so there can't be a whole film of Spidey and Venom facing off. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
RE: Smallville (Yes)
Yes, because it's the only episode which specifically refers to him as such :)19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but the citation exists to show that this character is meant to be Martian Manhunter, as although it was strongly implied, they never said the phrase. He is obviously not known as Martian Manhunter in Smallville (yet) but it remains irrelevant :).~ZytheTalk to me! 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, yes. The citation exists to prove the character is the Smallville version of Martian Manhunter, but it can be appended to show that he has not assumed that codename in the series yet. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's absolutely fine. I rewrote it similarly but left it your way due to an edit conflict. It now explains the who Phill Morris plays very clearly, the system works! :P~ZytheTalk to me! 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, yes. The citation exists to prove the character is the Smallville version of Martian Manhunter, but it can be appended to show that he has not assumed that codename in the series yet. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Apu nominated the main Amanda Young picture for deletion. I've gave my thoughts and I'm going to notify others but if you could help I'd appreciate it. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
RE:GoldenEye
Thanks for your help. I'll see if I can find any more information on the reaction and release side of things, they could do with a bit of expanding. - • The Giant Puffin • 15:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You probably know this but this user was adding birth and death dates to all the TCM characters despite none of them having concrete ages. I reverted all of the edits I could find by this person.--CyberGhostface 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Attacks
I know, but why does it seem people want to take content away for no good reason whatsoever rather than add good content. Why would someone want to remove a citation, and an article desperate for them. Vandals. Nice picture though pal.Whataboutbob 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I'll delete the offensive. Its just odd. It doesnt really appear the work of a blatant vandal, but its just too random, odd! If you see what I added and what was taken away etc by this person, then I think you would agree its odd! Cheers!Whataboutbob 16:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Name
Hey, I was looking around some of my favorite comic book movie pages here and i noticed your name. Bignole, FSU, i'm guessing, if it is, I just want to say cool, becuase I live in Tallahassee, and If it is the same noles you are talking about then I am a big fan! ManofSTEEL2772 May 22 07 9:08 p.m.
Comics
Kool about Seminoles but since I have noticed that you edit some comic book pages, I was wondering something and if you could possibly help me answer it. I have asked this on both the Marvel Sandman and Symbiote disscusion pages. I would truly appreciate it if you visited one of these pages. You don't know how long I have been waiting for an answer! Oh, and I was sarcastic on the symbiote page, nothing out of hand or truly rude I was just saying thanks for the help, even though no one answered it. Anyways Thanks alot! ManofSTEEL2772 9:56 p.m. 22 May 2007
Bring me that horizon
So when are you off to see Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End? Alientraveller 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd have loved to have seen it on opening day, but possibly this weekend. I love watching families watching a Disney flick, and the sense of joy as children and adults laugh at Jack's antics or shudder at Davy Jones together. Alientraveller 13:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, still, does that mean you'll spoil yourself trying to keep the plot in control? I'm surprised no one wants to semi-protect the article: I made a request but got turned down. Alientraveller 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah critics, they found Pirates 1 and 2 so complex they made themselves look like right fools compared to every kid on the planet. Alientraveller 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess Liz and Will get married and Jack's destined to be with the Black Pearl whilst being slapped by those two prostitutes in Tortuga. Mind, it was all to emulate Empire Strikes Back. This afternoon I hope to watch the DMC DVD and take my notes. Alientraveller 14:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realise how good you were with images, could you crop the IGN logo from the second picture from here? [2] Thanks. Alientraveller 07:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
A pointer as to what my request is since you did miss it. As for the Pirates budget, I understand the combined budget was $400 million according to Empire, but no quote, so oh well. Alientraveller 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean DMC had a longer shoot than AWE, which was shoot mostly in America, so really, who knows: it's a huge operation as it is: who can say what each LOTR film cost since New Line financed it as a single $300 million flick? As for the pic, well it's the DVD for anyone to capture, so can't you crop out the trademark, hidden within the black bars? Alientraveller 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if ever in doubt, just check the history part of your talk page to verify where new messages are. Alientraveller 19:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I do have the DVD but I don't have PowerDVD to capture an image. Anyway, AWE's plot has been cleaned-up by me: further proof critics were ninnies for finding the plot complex. Alientraveller 17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well what do you know? I'm rewriting Jack Sparrow in my sandbox! You're as welcome to copyedit and question what I've done as much as you wish! Much easier than Jason Voorhees. Why do you like Jason btw? Are you of the opinion of him as a vigilante against irresponsible teens? Alientraveller 12:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the Peter Jackson quantum: it's so over-the-top it's funny, not scary. Mind, I can't stomach gore, Itchy and Scratchy is the level I can't go to. Alientraveller 12:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Superman project
We have to get around the Superman logo copyright, yes? As long as they don't complain that it looks too much like the original logo from 1938. >:) Baseball Bugs 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the owners of "Superman" have always guarded their copyrights closely. The generic 'S' is probably as good as it gets without seeking permission. Baseball Bugs 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that little logo, given that it's in the public ___domain (which I wonder about), would be good enough to convey the message. Baseball Bugs 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, even though it's a little fuzzy, I like the cartoon frame better than the generic 'S'. Nice job with the generic 'S', though. Keep it around in case some copyright watchdog yelps about the cartoon frame, even if it is in commons area and supposedly has passed copyright clearance, Clarence. :) Baseball Bugs 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that little logo, given that it's in the public ___domain (which I wonder about), would be good enough to convey the message. Baseball Bugs 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I get a chuckle when I see the wording of wikipedia projects, "an attempt to..." something-or-other. The word "attempt" is equivalent to "try". In the words of Yoda, "There is no 'try'. Do, or do not." :) Baseball Bugs 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- If I were writing it, I would say "the purpose of such-and-such project is to..." instead of "such-and-such project is an attempt to...". Or such-and-such. Baseball Bugs 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent. Except I would say "the purpose of this project", since the name of the project is stated in the previous sentence. But I like the decisiveness. Superman is not wishy-washy. He's a man of action... do-or-die... and all that sort of thing. Yoda would approve. :) Baseball Bugs 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Professor Hamilton
Is there a reason you removed all of the content from Talk:Professor Hamilton? Cool Bluetalk to me 20:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alright... I knew it wasn't vandalism, but I had to make sure. Good luck editing. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Pilot
Wow! Just the other day I was thinking that the pilot should be the other thing to work on. It is really really great. When you transfer the info over you should nominate at the FAC when you think it is ready. I can't really think of much to add; though perhaps it is worthy to mention that
- the scarecrow scene became somewhat of a symbol of the show and was used for posters/DVD season one.
- I did some searching, and found [3],[4] which may help with the debut/ratings aspect of the reception section.
- Maybe mention that the pilot and (ep 2 I think) are available on their own DVD?
Looks really great. Good work Bignole! Can't wait to see it complete! Also, could you have a quick look at the lead of the Aquman page (it seems to be a little jumbled with the filming - and also links things twice and stuff like that?) Davey4 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The changes to the lead are good, thanks for fixing it up. The pilot (Smallville) page is looking great. You could maybe also add that it was nominated for one other Emmy as well as the one it won. It was nominated/won a few other things as well.[5](search "pilot" to see where it shows up). Great job so far! Davey4 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Dark Knight
Dude, this looks like the teaser, and that's definitely not the Joker that was in the viral marketing campaign... holy god, was it really all just a hoax?! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind; I had some suspicions, especially with the scene of Mr. Dent being similar to Thank You for Smoking, and what potentially seemed to be stock footage of the film. Found the proof here. Damned fakers! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Smallville
While it look s good to me, I think your best option would be to discuss the matter further on the talk page of the article in question. These are major changes, and people should have the chance to comment on them. Tompw (talk) (review) 08:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Spiderman 3
Thanks for the pointer on Spiderman 3 - I was wrong to remove the brief synopsis from the lead para. Regards, --Oscarthecat 11:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Various
Gosh I feel like Jonah Jameson. Can you chip in at Toy Story 3 regarding someone who's trying to defend speculation as if he's putting two and two together? Btw, did you miss my Pirates 1 picture request? Alientraveller 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Your question at Portal talk:Dinosaurs:
I've answered there - however, until that time JP does actually have a couple of links on the portal page, so it hasn't been forgotten. Regards, Spawn Man 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Spidey 2
Two down, one to go... I'll be busy with Pirates 1 and primarily 2, how's it going with Spidey 2's critical reaction. I hope you may have time in between Smallville. If not, I'll add it to my backlog. Alientraveller 11:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Re; Smallville (multi episode thingy)
Caught it before you said anything. Check out my recent edit. I think its helpful. Like I said in my (whatever the little comment thingy at the bottom of the page is called), I jumped the gun, and I'm way too tired to be wiki-ing. And if you don't like my rearranging, revert please. It won't hurt my feelings any.
--trlkly
- Well, I read what you said after I finished posting. (Bad move, I know). I agree with what you said in general, but I haven't slept in 24 hours, and I'm too tired to attempt a critical assessment (not that there's necessarily annythitng to be critical about). I'll comment later on the article's talk page.
- I do pose one thought, though. Stargate actually has its telescript posted online, in what looks to be the original format (as scanned PDFs). So it seems that the copyright owners really don't care, to me (at least, for that show).
- --trlkly
Good point about the wiki plot policy. I wasn't aware of that policy until I read your comments that (originally) came after mine. I just didn't like the word "stealing", and wanted to point out why I didn't think it applied. But definitely something needs to be done (about SG), since it's against policy. I think I was (in my sleepless stupor) afraid that you might nominate the Stargate pages for deletion (after reading that huge debaucle about QZ) without letting the people there improve them. But that's against the deletion policy, right (try to fix some other way before deleting)?
Anyways, I'll read up on the appropriate policies after I look at your proposal for Smallville. Who knows, maybe your proposal would go over well in the SG-1 cirlclea. It is a very new project (no comments on talk pages).
- Well I hate that entertainment articles are less valued on wiki. I've always seen wikipedia as a place for more casual research. And when it comes to casual research, it's better to have articles that the public is interested in. Highly accademic articles also have their place, but they currently only serve as a starting place for more accademic research. Since wikipedia is a tertiary source, a researcher must verify its information actually comes from the sources it cites. At least, no professor I've ever had will accept wiki as a valid source.
- Meh. I was pretty much saying the same thing. I guezs I should have said that wiki's also for casual research. I just think wiki's place as a casual research repository is just as important as its place as an accademic encyclopedia.
- But entertainment articles have their place in serious research, too. Most encyclopedias include articles on fictional works. They just don't have many because they are limited by their paper medium. Wiki isn't.
The Descent
Hi Bignole, I don't want to edit war over the cast on article on The Descent. But my point is that if user comes to WP for quick info on cast it is much easier if he sees it right away in TOC without reading plot etc. Also you don't want to read the plot if you haven't seen the movie yet... It doesn't harm to have that subsection there. Anyone can skip it without trouble of scrolling through long text or something. I also prefer to see spoiler warning even when useless for most users it is better to warn especially if all details are revealed. Thank you.--Pethr 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Internship
You probably saw my message to Alientraveller about the internship. I'm pretty busy all day, and the commute is pretty rough. I don't get back to the apartment until 7 PM, and the evening whizzes by with dinner, hanging with other interns, and TV. I'll be around enough to update future film stuff and fight vandals, just not enough for tackling any of my projects. Just giving you the heads up on that. Maybe the weekend will be easier -- or it could be the other way. We'll see. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would say it's a fairly important internship that helps improve my resume. I'm working for a Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company's IT department (in line with my major), so I want to make sure I do an excellent job for both the experience and the future reference. The town where I reside isn't very big, but I will probably do road trips on the weekends to do stuff in the surrounding area. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah... right now, I just hate the commute, but I have a backlog of New Yorker magazines I can read (been getting them all school year but never got around to reading them). I'm still learning the ropes and setting up accounts, as the place is really structured. I should be doing stuff by next week, and we'll see if I like it or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Adding sig to infobox
I am running itno some problems as to how to add a signature to an infobox of an article who belongs to the sig. It doesn't seem to want to take/display the sig. Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC) )]] 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, so the infobox template needs to be replaced with something more malleable. Any ideas? Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A small problem
They tried to place it in the "Infobox Person" template, but a signature field didn't exist for the template. I discovered that the "President" infobox did have a signature field. So, I asked Arcayne if he wanted me to create a new template for the "First Lady". Then it became clear that most of the stuff that would go there was stuff already in the "Person" template, with the only things missing being "Signature". When I tried to just create the sig field in the "Person" template, it wouldn't take. It was exactly from the other templates, but for some reason nothing would register in the field. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I could see if I could add it myself, but I believe Template:Infobox Officeholder is a better template. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Technically that is the "President" template, they've combined all political position templates into the one. They could use the generic "Officeholder", but that's a lot of blank spaces the general template holds. It isn't like they have a "First Lady" section, like their "Ambassador" or "Senator" sections. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why is that a problem? Wouldn't your proposed template give the same result? -- tariqabjotu 01:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- None, as far as I can tell, but I thought there was some unwritten (or possibly written) rule that you shouldn't remove blank spots from an infobox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's news to me. -- tariqabjotu 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- None, as far as I can tell, but I thought there was some unwritten (or possibly written) rule that you shouldn't remove blank spots from an infobox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why is that a problem? Wouldn't your proposed template give the same result? -- tariqabjotu 01:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Technically that is the "President" template, they've combined all political position templates into the one. They could use the generic "Officeholder", but that's a lot of blank spaces the general template holds. It isn't like they have a "First Lady" section, like their "Ambassador" or "Senator" sections. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
BOF
Yeah, I was surprised to see all this anger toward me. I don't even have anything against BOF -- I even check it out once in a while, but as an editor, I don't consider it as an attributable source. Like you've said, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. There's no hate involved; it's a matter of playing by the rules. I wouldn't mind excluding IMDb links before a film's release, in addition to SHH as an external link. They're right about SHH reporting a lot of rumors, even though we don't link to these rumors. (We should address Rory's First Kiss again, by the way.) It's just that IMDb and SHH links have been such staples in film articles. Since BOF is more film-specific, it's easier to evaluate its merits as an external link. Would you oppose an interview at BOF if one ever came up for the film? I think my so-called "beef" is more about the lack of professionally backed reports. It's just not attributable to take an e-mail of a fan reporting filming taking place in a certain part of Chicago and use it as a source. I might e-mail Jett and see if I can diffuse the situation before it escalates. I'll bring up a discussion on the talk page about the external links. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I hesitate to have BOF as an external link because the supplementary content of external links should be attributable. That's why I just removed SHH. We've cited SHH's information such as interviews and set visits, but we don't include the mailed-in information they post. Right now, after reviewing SHH, there is not sufficient supplementary content there besides what already exists on the Wikipedia article at this stage in production. I'm sure that when the film comes out, we can restore SHH, which will be pulling in headlines about the film, most that probably won't be used. My concern with BOF right now is that there is a campaign to restore it as a link by people involved with that site -- obviously not a neutral approach. It needs to be evaluated by objective editors; I thought that was what we tried to do, but perhaps editors not involved with this film article could evaluate BOF. Furthermore, the founder proclaims his site to be the biggest Batman fan site on the Internet. It'd be nice to see some evidence to back that claim. I don't know of any other fan sites right now, but if there are some and people want to include theirs, we should be able to present why BOF is worthy enough to include as an external link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just registered as "Erik the Bad Guy" to use BOF forums. Wish I could share my password; you'd get a kick out of it (a little light-hearted rip on BOF). Hopefully I can post a comment to try to explain the approach we're taking. These blanket statements bother me -- "This is why Wikipedia sucks!" et cetera. We put together an extremely good article for Spider-Man 3, and I have no doubt we'll do that for The Dark Knight. Apparently, I have to apply one more time to get my account approved to make any comments, so we'll see if Jett will censor me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I was in BOF's chat for a couple of hours today, having some good old-fashioned movie talk. I've also posted a response in the anti-Wikipedia thread at BOF. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- We'll see how Jett responds. There were two people in that thread who I talked to in the chat room, and I think I showed them that I wasn't as evil as initially portrayed. It was really odd to get such criticism directed at me. I don't take it personally, but I suppose I'm following up on this to see if I can clear up the issue. (Something to do on a lazy afteroon, you know?) We'll see they can change their tune toward me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the primary issue is that this is a well-established community, and since the members are very much a part of it, it's hard for them to understand how a new user may perceive the website. This is especially true when it comes to citing similar sites on Wikipedia. When I first saw BOF last summer, my impression was not that positive. The layout was not professionally done like IGN, so it would be easy for a visitor to perceive the site as one of questionable credibility. I think that the case with Casino Royale with a couple of editors questioning the use of fan sites for citations is something to look out for, which is why BOF may be more questionable than SHH, since it is totally focused on this film, lacking neutrality in its coverage. Since it's their site, it's hard for them to see that we're not giving other sites like Latino Review special treatment; we cite as little as we can from movie sites that "report" information.
- I've been extended the welcome mat, obviously, but I don't agree with what Gregg said. He applauded Jett for bringing me in, when I was actually the one who took initiative, created an account, and shared my spiel. Maybe he meant granting me permission to post on the forum... oh, well. I don't plan to say, "Excuse me, but I came here of my own accord. I still don't know if the founder is still pissy toward me or not." Wouldn't help things, ya know? I did an initial search of BOF in the mainstream, but I didn't find too much. I think if we did include it, we should have its reputation backed by sources. That way, if TDK is ever reviewed and BOF is called into question, then we can point to the talk page section and say, "We found several mainstream sources noting the site's prominence." It'll help keep any other fan sites off the External links section, too, so owners of these sites can't say, "Hey, BOF is on it, why can't I include my fan site?" —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... I'm not getting too much feedback about outside, objective sources like USA Today about BOF They have these quotes commending the website that come from the website itself. The quotes don't seem to stand up to criticism. It's circuitous logic. In order to recognize BOF's credibility with their information, we are using their information to establish that. I mean, the site also has a counter for how many visitors it's seen, but it seems that it could be criticized, being the primary source. What do you think is the appropriate level of standards to establish BOF as a reputable fan site? I haven't had much time looking for BOF mentions in the mainstream media, but I was hoping that the BOF folks would help out with outside sources. I guess it's like what you said; it's hard to explain the rules of the system in which we work in such succinct terms. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's more for the forum than the site itself. You can see the statistics here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Heather Newgen (2007-04-22). "Spider-Man 3 Interviews: Bryce Dallas Howard". Superherohype.com. Retrieved 2007-05-07.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
webwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).