Jump to content

Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Roger Dean Artwork similarities

Am I dreaming or does Roger Dean deserve a nod from James Cameron for some of the concept artwork on this movie. Some of the Screen Shots look like they were lifted right of the Yessongs album cover. 66.49.231.71 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed further up. Please read the Talk page prior to starting a new section. Doniago (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly

This quote is said to come from Entertainment Weekly, where Cameron talks about Avatar: “100 percent of what the actor does. Not 98, not 95—but 100 percent…Every nuance, every moment of their creation on set is preserved.” Does anyone have the link? An older quote in Wikipedia's article about Avatar says they were going to capture 95% of the actors' facial performances, but here it says 100%. 84.210.23.42 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the words were spoken at Comic Con, here's a link to a report: http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/jackson-cameron-saddened-state-film-industry_4578 AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Foolish subplot about unobtanium

What is actualy means "precious mineral"? Even under current technologies any chemical compound (inorganic) could be synthesized from chemical elements.I don't talk about technologies of the future when intergalaxy travels will be available.Precious could be element (such as Platinum),not mineral.Once chemical formula will be discovered it will be much cheaper to synthesize it than to mine it on a toxic planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Unobtanium and MacGuffin. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The "mineral" is a plot device, used to provide a pretext human interest in the planet. This fact should be fairly obvious to any intelligent person. - Gwopy 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)
Re "Even under current technologies any chemical compound (inorganic) could be synthesized from chemical elements." - The problem may not be synthesizing the compound, but rather constructing the crystal structure for the compound in a large enough size for the room temperature superconductor unobtanium. Today for example, just the element carbon alone is apparently difficult to put into a crystal structure in a way that can replace large gem quality diamonds, which are still obtained from diamond mining. Unobtainium may have a much more complicated crystal structure so that even in the 22nd century it cannot be synthesized.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To indulge in theorizing even further, this might even have more to do with its isotopic composition. Compared to crystal structures, isotopes are even more difficult to synthesize in commercial amounts. Like the energetically promising Helium-3 is extremely rare on Earth but is relatively abundant on the Moon, which makes it more profitable to mine it on the Moon than to synthesize it on Earth. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Unobtanium is used in the antimater/fusion hybrid drives. That could mean a great many things. In the movie, it is referred to as energetic. You can't synthesize energy.99.32.186.55 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The supplementary materials for the movie say that unobtainium is a room temperature superconductor with several unique properties that is utilized in a lot of technology on Earth. Similar substances can be synthesized on Earth, but the cost is far more than to import it from Pandora. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm tempted to say more about it, but I won't. In any case, for those who have trouble with the concept of Suspension of disbelief, it seems like enough has been mentioned to satisfy them about the need to mine unobtanium, rather than synthesize it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fern Gully Connection

There has been limited discussion of a a connection with the plot of Fern Gully. But the final scene of Fern Gully contains a quote, "For our children and our children's children." Jake Sully can be heard delivering this quote while gathering the tribes. It appears to be a self-aware reference to Fern Gully by the creators. This might make an interesting line in the section noting comparisons to Fern Gully, Dances with Wolves, etc. (72.132.162.215 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Our own observations are meaningless without proof. :) DrNegative (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

but there are several points that are very similar ..iridescent vegetation, human evil, destruction of trees, home tree etc.. Assianir (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar has now surpassed Titanic

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2414728620100124?type=marketsNews --24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Non domestic totals only if you read it. The worldwide total is off by about 2 million. Dante2308 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait until Monday afternoon (US time) for a more exact figure; right now, it's just estimates over the weekend. —Mike Allen 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Concur. The figures for each week usually don't get finalized until the following Monday. You have to wait for all movie theatres in all time zones to close their general ledgers for the week and report their final figures. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Another link: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i107616f101d6818868bd08edad593649 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.130.158 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A third link: http://www.movieweb.com/news/NELoqPLOscsDPP Moviemaniacx (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we really go by any other source than Box Office Mojo and The Numbers on this matter? Not that I do not not believe The Hollywood Reporter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in a matter of clear contradiction. This article's box office gross field in the infobox cannot be updated to show that Avatar is the highest-grossing film of all-time because Box Office Mojo and The Numbers do not say so yet, and the same goes for List of highest-grossing films. If The Hollywood Reporter is not good enough to use for the actual box office numbers, how is it good enough to use for proclamation that Avatar is now the highest-grossing film of all-time? Oh well. I suppose we now have to wait for Box Office Mojo and The Numbers to say that Avatar is now the highest-grossing film of all-time so that we no longer look silly. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

American film?

I noticed that in comparison to several featured film articles (Star Wars, Jurassic park, Casino Royale, etc.) on Wikipedia, this one seems to be lacking the film's country in the opening sentence of the lead. I looked through the archives and it seemed as if consensus was a hung-jury. Are we going to leave it to the reader to decide the film's origin of distribution? I feel that it should be noted. DrNegative (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I feel like this caused a headache last time it was brought up. If we go by nationality of production company:
  • Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation: USA
  • Dune Entertainment: USA
  • Giant Studios: GB
  • Ingenious Film Partners: GB
  • Lightstorm Entertainment: USA
By this metric, it would be a British-American production. The fact that it was filmed in New Zealand by a Canadian director seems to have caused a bit of a stir. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I was unsure of the policy of reference so to speak. Other filming locations here[1] list:
      • Hamakua Coast, Hawaii, USA
      • Hughes Aircraft - 909 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, California, USA
      • Kaua'i, Hawaii, USA
      • Los Angeles, California, USA
      • O'ahu, Hawaii, USA
      • Playa Vista, California, USA
      • Stone Street Studios, Stone Street, Miramar, Wellington, New Zealand
      • Wellington, New Zealand
On that note, I didn't think filming locations were taken into serious account because many filmakers shoot on location outside the film's country of origin anyway. Then I thought it depended on the distribution studio (who also fronted the majority of the bill and owns the contractual rights to the film) which would be Fox in this case headquartered in Hollywood, CA. I'm sure this omission will be brought up in a future FA review for this film and I'm trying to get a good rational as to why we opted to disclude it. DrNegative (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe this was the main discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)/Archive_5#American-British_film.3F It seems the issue was whether it should be labelled American, or British-American, or American-British. The easiest thing to do would be to call it American, since as you say the distribution studio is the biggest player and is located in the U.S. I'm not sure it's worth continuing to keep this out of the lead, since in the rest of the article we regularly refer to "domestic" box office figures which correspond to U.S. (and Canada) box office figures. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It was copyrighted in the US and made by a US based production company. A UK company put up a third of the financing. The consensus was that it was American. The latest Bond films are copyrighted in the UK, made by a UK production company, and the US put up half of the financing. The consensus is that it is a UK-US co-production. A film's nationality seems to be primarily determined on Wikipedia by the funding levels rather than where they are made or copyrighted. Personally I would rather just go with the copyright country, at least it's concrete and indisputable. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points, I agree. DrNegative (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's try this then... here goes AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Good change. Considering the standard in listing the country of origin for film articles, we need consensus to remove it, not the other way around. DrNegative (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This looks like something that a random visitor might change again. Perhaps a hidden comment might help stabilize it more. For example <!--"American" was discussed. Please do not change without first discussing at Talk.-->, or something better. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD, RM and (eventually) RfD

There are current proposals by me to move category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 24#Category:Avatar (film) and the template at Template talk:Avatar (film). If the second move goes ahead, i will put the original link on RFD. Simply south (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The template now appears at TfD for renaming; someone closed the RM and said it should use TfD; see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26 for the rename discussion
76.66.195.93 (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Highest grossing film

According to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/camerons-avatar-now-king-of-the-world/article1443737/ and many other sources, Avatar has grossed more than Titanic. --Carpetmaster101 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now I'm bored. See you guys for Battle Angel. 99.32.186.55 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

AVATOLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The inspiration for Hallelujah Mountains was Guilin, not Huangshan!

I thought the Hallelujah Mountains just didn't look that much like Huangshan (I've actually visited Huangshan) and I just confirmed that they were not related. I just stopped at Barnes & Noble to skim through the media tie-ins produced for Avatar. The official Art of Avatar book explains (at page 37) that the Hallelujah Mountains came about when Cameron kept telling his artists, "show me more rocks." In response, artist Steve Messing went to Guilin and spent two weeks flying around in a hot air balloon shooting photos of the famous karst formations. On page 36, left opposite the text on page 37, there is a 2-D mockup of the Hallelulah Mountains that, according to the caption, is directly based on Messing's Guilin photos but with digital editing to create the "floating" look (and in turn, the 3-D models for the film were created based on such mockups). Any comments before I update the article to reflect this? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

James Cameron himself said in the press that it was inspired by the Mount Huangshan: "All we had to do was simply recreate Huangshan Mountain in outer space."[2] But of course, there are some in the media also say it is based on Hunan province's Zhangjiajie landscapes. Anyway, the film's production designer Dylan Cole said the look of the Hallelujah Mountains were inspired by various landscapes in China, and they looked at three regions: Guilin, Huangshan, and Zhangjiajie [3].
Personal observation, based on pictures, many aspects does look a lot like the Mount Huangshan to me, but it could be a mesh up of all these landscapes.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"I see you" - Anyone else noticed the Zulu connection?

I have been reading some books about South Africa (as I am thinking about planning my next big trip there) and noticed that "I see you" is the literal translation of the word for "hello" in the siTswana and Zulu languages. I wonder if Paul Frommer borrowed that for the Na'vi language. Anyone know anything about this? --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sawubona (Zulu greeting: “I see you are not my enemy”)[4] This seems consistent with the western greeting of holding up an open hand which may have originally come about to show that you weren't holding a weapon. Just an aside, here's a film from another era, of a battle between colonizers and indigenous people, called Zulu. Anyhow, in Avatar, the phrase "I see you" didn't seem to be a greeting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was! Combined with the hand-to-face-to-other-face motion... AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was closer to "I love you". --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It means I acknowledge or respect you and can be used as an expression of endearment. Taken in context, it was more meaningful when Neytiri held human Jake because she was accepting him as a human after all the conflict due to her relationship with him. Dante2308 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar 2

I have found a few links of "Avatar 2" linking to here. Do we have enough information to make an "Avatar 2" page? Else, can we change it so it doesn't link to here (change it to the red no page thing or whatever)? Cainine (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar 2 should link to Avatar_(2009_film)#Future. Theleftorium 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I fixed up the link, thanks for the help. Cainine (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Current events" inserted into plot

I'm moving this here as a formality; I don't think it adds anything useful beyond rehashing the imperialist theme. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical and Current Events Depiction

It was concluded by some critics and viewers that the movie's plot bears unmistakable resemblance to the annihilation of the Red Indians and Australian Aboriginals by European immigrants; the 1948 Palestinian exodus sparked by founding the state of Israel; as well as Imperialism in general.[1][2]. Furthermore, Colonel Miles Quaritch (the main antagonist) using the expressions "We will fight terror with terror" and "pre-emptive attack is our only hope" as pretexts while mobilizing his soldiers to justify attacking the natives via shock and awe was seen as a hint to the ongoing War on Terror[3][4][5]

I agree, and it definitely does not belong in the "Plot" section to say the least. DrNegative (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Moved it under "Themes" to match the template.

Wait for consensus before making any changes. I know your new to Wikipedia but we talk it over here and get other input from other editors without retroactively changing the live article as we discuss it. DrNegative (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, even though you did attempt to address my point that I brought up, AniRaptor feels that it is WP:UNDUE from what I gather from his/her comment. DrNegative (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This does not belong in a Themes section of this article. We already have a Themes and inspirations section, where Cameron acknowledges the sociopolitical themes in this film. Not only that, but stuff like this is already covered in the Critical reception section. If it belongs anywhere in this article, it is there...along with other people's opinions about this film. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The editor is persistently reverting and ignoring calls to discuss. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I have reported this editor (Theremes) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Going against WP:3RR is a big no-no, and this editor has certainly violated WP:3RR (with as many times as he or she was reverted by different editors here). You all are invited to weigh in on this matter there at the Administrators Incidents noticeboard. Sure, this editor is new, but that does not excuse this behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been reported at the 3RR board as well. Interestingly enough, the links provided as "references" make no mention of "red Indians" or "aborigines", as the contested text claims. Also, the second paragraph is very close to a copyvio on one of the links. Either way, the whole thing reeks of WP:SYNTH frmo a new editor who thought that tossing a pile of links on as "references" (whether they really were or not) would be enough. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This editor needs to be blocked immediately. Shows complete disdain for consensus... Doc9871 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
And now he is - 36 hour block... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hehee! 3RR? More like 8RR... Doc9871 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I had removed my initial report; I was in the process of reporting him or her at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring instead, but it is complicated reporting there. Jeez. I had to gather up all kinds of diffs. And I was like, "There is no way I am going to provide all those damn diffs, but I will report this user." Good to see he or she is already blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well it looks like everything went downhill with an edit-war while I was away. Glad it has died down. I read most of the sources and several of them were user-submiited articles/journals it seemed. I had warned him with the 3RR template before I left, but he blanked his talk-page. DrNegative (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This user clearly has not learned a thing from being blocked. At this rate, he or she will be blocked again. I leave it to you guys. Flyer22 (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Reported him again - I expect the block to hit him quite soon, being a repeat offender. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much detail in the lede?

There are a lot of figures in the lede that are duplicated later in the article. I think this amount of detail is unnecessary. Since it's established that it probably isn't the most expensive film of all time I suggest just removing the budget information from the lede since the production section already covers it. As for the box office detail, I suggest retaining the current gross and its current ranking on the worldwide chart and leaving the rest to the box office section. The lede should only cover the most fundamental facts about the film, but there is too much statistical information bunged in. If someone comes to the article they don't need all that about budgets and opening figures, just a basic idea of how successful it has been and then they can go to the appropriate section if they want to read about its performance or conjecture about the budget. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points. I played around with a draft of the lead here.[5] I removed the journalists' speculation of the budget since Fox already confirmed it. That makes Fox's number the only one that is lead-worthy since they would be the ones who wrote the check. Combined some sentences, reformatted a little anticipating a fourth paragraph for other stuff. DrNegative (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You've cut the budget information to a reasonable size. I still think the gross information is still bloated. For instance its 27m opening day and 77m opening weekend aren't all that notable within the context of its achievements now (they're not even records for the December period) and perhaps are left until later in the article. The salient points about its gross are its record time for the billion, and its current status as the highest grosser. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Taking DrNegative's version of the 4th paragraph and trimming more, how about changing the 4th paragraph to this?
Avatar premiered in London on December 10, 2009, and was released internationally on December 16, 2009, and in North America on December 18, 2009, to critical acclaim and commercial success.[6][7][8] On <insert date here> it became the highest-grossing film of all time, surpassing Titanic.[9] Due to the film's success, Cameron confirmed that there will be a sequel.[10]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Works for me Bob. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. DrNegative (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If anyone finds the date to insert, feel free to substitute the paragraph, as far as I'm concerned. Also, note discussion in the previous section above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I added Bob's revison and linked to the the discussion here. One more note I added was the it broke "several" box office records during its release as a prelude to what the reader will discover reading the "Box office" section. I didnt know if the word "several" or "many" would be correct. Feel free to tweak or remove if necessary. DrNegative (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Has it really been established that Avatar is not the most expensive film ever made? Enough reliable sources seem to believe that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the production cost, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End still holds that crown. Avatar is currently ranked 4th. DrNegative (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The trimmed version looks pretty good to me so far, but I'd keep the bit about the word "avatar" being borrowed from Hinduism. Now the line is, "The film's title refers to the genetically engineered Na'vi bodies used by several human characters to interact with the natives of Pandora." Unless the reader knows a thing or two about Hindu theology, one might be liable to think that "avatar" has no meaning outside the film--to assume that "genetically engineered Na'vi bodies" is the definition of the word. A science-fiction filmmaker has license to come up with all sorts of exotic neologisms. But Cameron deliberately used a real (exotic) word, a religious metaphor--Cameron mentions the Hindu origins of the term in the source provided. As a matter of comparison, although George Lucas came up with his own meaning of "force", nobody is going to think that the word "force" means nothing outside the realm of Star Wars. But "avatar" isn't (or, well, wasn't) a word one hears every day, so the brief clarification might be useful. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I feel how it is currently defined in the lead as it stands is fine for the average reader in explanation of this particular work of fiction and how that term applies to this film. It does however receive some explanation in the themes section for its Hindu terminology, but its not lead-worthy in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right. The "themes and inspirations" section covers the idea quite well, and the lead probably couldn't include a crystal-clear explanation of the metaphor without becoming much too long. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence in "Box office"

On January 24, 2010, Avatar went on to break the abroad weekend record previously held by Titanic.

What does this even mean?? Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, looks like someone messed up on that. DrNegative (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not know what the sentence meant by "abroad." When I looked at the source, it was a weekend record. So I added "weekend" to "abroad." If "abroad" was to mean worldwide, it should have simply been presented that way, since the worldwide record is mentioned right after that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think they probably mean the worldwide record. Probably best to pull it because it doesn't really make sense. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? It means the overseas-only or non-domestic total but was worded like an enigma. That record was broken on Sunday while the worldwide record crashed yesterday. It probably should say that it broke the non-us gross record on that day but it is barely worth mentioning now. I have a qualm with the next sentence where it says "On January 25, 2010, only 48 days after its initial release, the film surpassed Titanic's worldwide gross to become the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide." 48 days? 39 thank you.Dante2308 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Right I'm with it now, it's just poor terminology. The correct word is 'international'. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with the word international. Worldwide and international are the same thing. If you want to say non-US, say non-US. Words like domestic and international are useless if used that way on an international website. Dante2308 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Non-US is fine by me, or in this case presumably that's non-US/Canada since Canada is part of the domestic market. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, when talking about worldwide/international box office you have to remember to add on the extra two days too. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Now the section reads "On January 24, 2010, the film broke the international record previously held by Titanic.[145] On January 25, 2010, only 41 days after its initial release, it surpassed Titanic's worldwide gross to become the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide." Repetitive use of the word "worldwide" in the second sentence only adds to the confounding question of how a movie can break the international record one day before breaking the worldwide record. Dante2308 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference 145 just links to the fifth domestic weekend gross so doesn't even supply the information, so unless a proper reference is supplied it's probably best to just scrap the sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And, Dante, does international always equal worldwide? Besides this article briefly using the words as two different things, I have seen enough other people refer to the international gross as simply the foreign gross. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because other people have done it does not make it right. It may stem from an American assumption that international (meaning between nations) doesn't include them. It does. The only time that international does not equate to worldwide is instances like the International Space Station where it is beyond the realm of the "world" but within the realm of a nation. Furthermore, to a non American, the "international record" most certainly means the whole planet unless they have internalized the notion that the US is separate and apart from the rest of the world. It is much easier and much more clear to say Non-US/Canada. That of course brings attention to the notion of "domestic" including two countries and international meaning everything except two countries. No need to make it more confusing. Dante2308 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I vote to just scrap it. Oh and btw an interesting note, Puerto Rico is also included in the domestic total by Fox. This is a worldwide article but to keep things organized, all revenues listed in the article should be relative (foreign/domestic) to Fox (the distribution studio who gets the receipts) as well. DrNegative (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Puerto Rico is within the United States is it not? On Fox, it is a multinational corporation and for accounting purposes this film did a great deal of it's work in New Zealand. I don't have qualms with the words foreign and domestic but I do have a bit of trouble understanding the difference between international and worldwide. As I said before, none of this really matters. Avatar is the highest grossing movie, end of story.Dante2308 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Puerto Rico is in the US is it? Anyway, the problem here is that 'foreign' omits Canada whereas Canada is actually included in what Box Office Mojo refers to as the 'domestic' market. 'International' is an industry standard phrase that means beyond the domestic market. For a British film the domestic market would be Britain and Ireland, whereas the 'international' market would be everywhere else. In box office terminology 'international' and 'worldwide' have different and distinct definitions. I think as long as the terminology is precisely defined at the start of the Box office section then it should be ok to use. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Oh and Puerto Rico is a self-governed territory of the US, not really a part of it in a true sense, but I read an article last week that Fox counts it as domestic in their tallies. Not sure if other studios do the same. DrNegative (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Dante2308, you are correct about Fox being a multi-national coorperation, but their headquarters is in Hollywood, CA and that is where the buck stops when the piles of money are mailed from the worldwide reciepts. DrNegative (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Betty, lets just scrap that bit. Reading that part out loud is a head scratcher at best and none of these terms are defined in any way.Dante2308 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Puerto Rico is definitely domestic! No passport required, no need to pass through customs going to and from, they use U.S. dollars, and all the road signs and markings are U.S.-style except that they're all in Spanish. I visited Puerto Rico in November 2008 and took several photos during my vacation for Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Virtual camera and simulcam

Since my contributions keeps getting deleted, I'll explain the difference here. A virtual camera, which doesn't have a lens, makes it possible to see the actors as their virtual characters, and c-stands with tennis balls on them as trees, in a digital enviroment in real time. Live action is not present at all.

The 3D fusion camera shoots the live action scenes in 3D.

The simulcam combines the 3D camera with the virtual camera, and is only used where the digital and the real world collide. And this camera do have alens. The live action is visible on a monitor in real time as well, but the CGI images captured with the virtual camera is simultaneously superimposed over the live action stuff, combining the two worlds.

Where live action interacts with CGI, a two step process is required. Cameron needs to direct the performance capture scenes first, and then he needs to direct the live action scenes with the digital material from the first part of the process added. After all, he needs to see the live action actors interact with something, even if they can't see it themselves during shooting.

All this is explained both in the reference I have added (which is the whole point with references) as well as in behind the scene clips from Avatar, found on YouTube (like here for instance; Avatar The Movie Behind The Scenes). Silbad (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your original reference did not cover all the material you worded to include into the article. It only had a very short paragraph on it, the rest I'm assuming is based on your personal knowledge. Either reword or cite another source along with it and try and properly format the citation this time. DrNegative (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted and added it back to the article, added an additional reference to support your statement, and properly formatted your citation. DrNegative (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Just a quick note.

The page has been nominated for Good Article Status for 19 days, yet no one has created a discussion page for it as per the header at the top of the talk page. The article seems to be of high enough quality (albeit perhaps a bit long) so pursuing the nomination should be the next step.

As i'm unsure whether I should create the discussion (as I did not nominate the page), would it be possible to get someone with a bit more wiki-experience to get the ball rolling?

RWJP (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The person who chooses to review the article for GA (who also has not contributed to this article), is the one who creates the page you are talking about. DrNegative (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandora

Has anyone come across a source for why Cameron chose the name "Pandora"? Three possibilities come to mind: 1) most likely, an allusion to Pandora's box; 2) possibly a reference to Pandora herself--the mythological Pandora was made out of the earth and has been linked to Gaia, so perhaps there's something of a "Mother Earth" metaphor; and 3) perhaps least likely, a nod to a real moon of the same name. An explanation of "Pandora" could complement the notes about the word "avatar" in the "themes and inspirations" section. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We need some sources, if we're going to put it in. More for the proposed "themes" article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It is probably an allusion to Pandora's box. In an official video, "Pandora Discovered", narrated by Sigourney Weaver, she says: "Pandora, one can only think of its namesake in Greek mythology. The box has been opened." Mathias-S (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Review begun

I've begun reviewing it, and it is definitely worthy of a comprehensive review. Should be finished in a day or two.Ktlynch (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Look forward to addressing any issues you may have with it. DrNegative (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I would say we definitely need to hurry up and take care of the current dead links in this article, as a start. It is in pretty good shape, except for needing a few tweaks and the recent edit-warring. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems that all of the dead links were already taken care of, except for one. I addressed the remaining one in the Dead links section of the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I knocked out 4 of them yesterday but when I got to that one, the door slammed. I searched every possible search engine for a possible source or alternate source. I even checked every instance of it on the wayback-machine archives with no luck. It is in link heaven. DrNegative (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL. What about what I stated about it in the Dead links section? Will you weigh in on that? Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a good article, likely to be informative to most readers.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS): The article is well, though not brilliantly written. The lead, plot and development sections are particularly strong. There are many places with slightly fluffy expression, or wordiness. [[6]] is an excellent edit which trimmed the plot summary. The awards and honours section is quite poorly written, and could benefit well from a tightening up the prose - highlighting the importance of the most notable awards, and a quick mention of the data, body, citation etc.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    It's well sourced and referenced inline, though not all are of the highest quality, many are internet magazines, short news articles etc. The problem with dead links on a recently created article demonstrates that these are not hugely reliable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    For such a large topic, the article achieves a good balance between the different aspects. The section "preformance analysis" may be too long: it seems to not have a clear purpose and largely devoted to pointing out various estimates observers made ex-ante. It is a really a commercial analysis attemptingt to explain the popularity of the film, a goal which could be achieved quicker.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    There are no clear biases, though vigiliance must be paid here. This is especially true when every minority group, communist or woman, chips in with analysis from their own perspective. That paragraph could also e removed from the critical reception, which deals with the film as a work of art.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    There is no on going edit war, but still heavy editing, as the topic is still relatively current, and new information becomes avaliable reguarly. This is very likely to improve the article, there has been widespread use of consensus building during the writing, and the article is currently semi-protected.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    For a long article, some more images, text boxes or drop quotations might break up the text nicely. Though for a commercial film it is difficult to secure freely licensed content. The images that are here are either freely licensed or contain convinving fair use rationales.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article's size may become a problem if too many more piecemeal edits are made, long analysis of themes, reaction, detail on the production techniques etc might warrant splitting a section into a new article. Remember to continously improve the sources used, and do everything in a collaborative fashion. Congrualations to the many editors who have helped here, and good luck improving the article.Ktlynch (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for the reviewing this article, and for promoting it. I did not think it would be reviewed/promoted this soon, considering the long wait we were likely to be subjected to. As for the Performance analysis section, I feel that it does have a clear purpose; this film's performance at the box office is far beyond the typical film box office performance, and many people have wondered just how it has been able to do what it has done performance-wise, including box office analysts. They have wondered so much that they have thoroughly weighed in on it; there are various other thoughts from them about this film's success, but I have not added those thoughts, because the section is long enough and already covers everything about its box office performance well. I am not seeing how it is "largely devoted to pointing out various estimates observers made ex-ante." I explained its existence earlier: "...I created it because the extent of this film's box office success has baffled most people. It seemed important to address how people thought this film would flop (like had been thought of Titanic), the box office predictions by box office analysts who were sure it would not flop, Cameron's take on all that, the box office analysts being stunned by just how successful this film has been at the box office, and the explanations they have given for its monstrous run. Not only is it notable, but I knew that people would particularly want to read all that."

People have often wondered what is behind this film's baffling success, even on this talk page, and heated debates about it continue on the Internet. The Performance analysis section gives them their answer. If you would rather it be renamed to Commercial analysis, as it seems you suggest, I am not too opposed to that title. But "Performance" seems clearer to me and covers more than just the concept of "commercial" success. But, really, how is either title too differently from the other? Is it because you feel that "commercial" can possibly limit some of the detail, and explain the popularity of the film quicker under that title? I have looked to see what can be cut from that section, more than once, before this GA review began, and everything there seems relevant to mention. But I will keep looking at it, and seeing if there is perhaps a paragraph that can be cut out or at least cut down. But that section is not much bigger than the Critical reception section. The box office analysts opinions about this film have been just as important as the critics' opinions about it.

You are spot on about this article's size, and I addressed that on this talk page some time before you posted your review. We will also do our best to take care of your other concerns.

Thank you again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There are currently 10 dead links on this article. [7]. Mostly from ComingSoon.net. I haven't looked at the article to see what the sources are being used for. Just a FYI. —Mike Allen 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should [dead link] them if you come across them so people know they need to be replaced. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to hit up the wayback machine to see what I could find when I get time. We could probably find more recent refs to use for those as well. DrNegative (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If the information is static (i.e. not related to box office) try and use http://webcitation.com to archive the pages. That way if the links go dead the information doesn't become unsourced. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going through right now. Under the Character (Humans) section there is a dead comingsoon.net link and then the archive link next to it. So that is triggering the tool saying it's a dead link because it's listed (even though the archive is also listed). Another one, I retrieved from the way back machine. —Mike Allen 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, make sure the dead link isn't hyperlinked and that the archived page link is. Sounds like the problem DrNegative (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Ah, OK sounds like a solution. :) —Mike Allen 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Uh, how do you "unlink" within the "url=" parameter? —Mike Allen 02:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I have seen editors do it but I'm not sure how to properly format it. Have you tried this example format for the reference?
"Wikipedia Main Page". Archived from the original on 2005-07-06. Retrieved 2002-09-30. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2002-09-30 suggested (help)
Checklinks should ignore the url hyperlink in this case if there is a valid archive url field within the ref to support it. DrNegative (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok that's how some do it already. It was one ref "Avatar starts filming in April" that had a ref name="start" and when the ref was used (2 times) and it didn't use the ref name, it used the whole cite web on all of them, one being the archive cite web and one being the regular site web. If that makes sense. lol —Mike Allen 02:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense now. Checklinks was treating them as two seperate instances as refs and knocking one as a dead link. I'll help you clean some of these up. DrNegative (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This line needs a source: "Spielberg and George Lucas were also able to visit the set to watch Cameron direct with the equipment."

I cannot find a really good source for it. So far, what I have come across are two blogs, and one student newspaper. Blogs are typically considered unreliable by Wikipedia, but there are exceptions, per Wikipedia:SPS. For example, if the source is coming from a TV Guide blog. For more in depth detail on this, Wikipedia:SPS says that blogs are acceptable in the following instances: When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

But it also says: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer...

  • First source. Reading Between the Lines: First Image of James Cameron’s Avatar. By Aldric Chang - who has written 718 posts on Animation Blog. "Aldric Chang is the Founding Managing Director of the Mediafreaks group and is best described as a creative entrepreneur with business interests in internet marketing, virtual worlds for kids, animation, cartoons, interactive digital media, web 2.0 and music."
  • Second source. James Cameron: Avatar. Posted by Jonathan On December - 21 - 2009. "Jonathan Crocker is a freelance journalist based in London. Having previously been a commissioning editor at Total Film, Men’s Health and Time Out, Jonathan also contributes to publications including i-D magazine, ShortList, Little White Lies, TheLondonPaper and Wired."

I would appreciate comments about whether or not either of these sources are okay to use, and how we are going to source the unsourced line if they are not. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The first source was my favorite, it was an official blog of a professional website. The second source looks fine too considering the author's credentials. The third one seems reliable as its a student newspaper with an official website. I would say just cite all 3 or at least the first 2. I read the WP:RS and I could not find anything therein that would disqualify these as reliable, but I'm not 100% sure. It's all we have to work with. DrNegative (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will add all three. I suppose we'll see if anyone objects to either or all of them. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well that did it. As of today, 226 links and no casualties. DrNegative (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

'Domestically' continued...

Continuing from the archived discussion - the sentence in the 'box office' section "..26th-highest-grossing film of all time domestically when adjusted for inflation" still reads U.S.-centrically. 'Domestic' just means 'inside a country'. It could read "26th-highest-grossing film of all time domestically in North America when adjusted for inflation" - taking account that the rest of the world exists. Thank you. Spanglej (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be technically correct, every definition of North America includes Mexico so saying North America does not help clarify. Dante2308 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

'Southern Sky Column' in China renamed the 'Avatar Hallelujah Mountain'

Nice article with fantastic photos about it here [8] 86.133.208.193 (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Highest grossing???

Isn't this due to higher priced 3D tickets? Simply south (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That is part of it, yes, but not the whole reason. Explanations for this film's success are covered in the Performance analysis section of this article; questions like the one you proposed is the main reason I created it -- because the extent of this film's box office success has baffled most people. It seemed important to address how people thought this film would flop (like had been thought of Titanic), the box office predictions by box office analysts who were sure it would not flop, Cameron's take on all that, the box office analysts being stunned by just how successful this film has been at the box office, and the explanations they have given for its monstrous run. Not only is it notable, but I knew that people would particularly want to read all that. Remember, though, that Wikipedia is not a forum...per WP:FORUM.
You may also be interested in taking part in the #Fixing the inflation adjusted issue discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It's always sold out here, and the city isn't that big. LOL —Mike Allen 02:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Former Marines versus Marines?

For some time now, I've been editing the first paragraph of the Plot Summary to reflect that it is former Marines (rather than active duty Marines) who are employed by the RDA corporation as contractors to provide security for the mining operation on Pandora. Another editor (Williamstrother) has reverted this several times now, but never uses edit summaries, so I unable to discern on the face of it why it keeps getting reverted. Does anyone have any light to shed on this point? Is anyone else under the impression that it's not former marines being employed by the corporation for security, but instead actual U.S. Marines, under a command, on assignment there and ordered to protect the company's operations? I don't think it is, but I'd appreciate anyone willing to weigh in on this and help put this matter to bed. --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

They are former Marines. As Jake said, "There's no such thing as an ex-Marine, you may be out, but you never lose the attitude." DrNegative (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
See discussion here. If the editor continues reverting your edits then Warnings may be in order. Doniago (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that archived discussion, good catch. Also, after taking a closer look at Williamstrother's talk page and block log, apparently he has been blocked on several occasions before for disruptive editing and warned about reverting edits with no edit summaries and no discussion on his part.--AzureCitizen (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Re. [9] and [10]: First of all, please do not mark a revert as minor. If it were minor, it would not be in dispute. Secondly, I don't see how it is relevant that the line in question is or is not a sentence fragment. The idea of WP:LQ is WYSIWYG: If it's not in the alphabet soup, it won't end up in the spoon; if it's not in the source, it doesn't go inside quotation marks. Sometimes a period in the source will have to be dropped in the quotation because it would interrupt the sentence flow; this is why one needs to use some common sense when deciding where to place sentence fragments that, in the original source, end with a period. There is no period in the source that would interrupt any syntax in the article, so I fail to see how the nature of sentence fragments is the least bit germane here. One may omit punctuation that would be disruptive (after all, except when quoting full sentences, the act of quotation is an act of omission), but one may not add punctuation where it would be...well, just what would it be, anyway? I still do not grasp the rationale for adding it. If it's not in the source, it doesn't just get to materialize within the quotation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this. That works. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed this comment. First, reverts can be marked as minor, such as vandalism or other clearly wrong edits. Not saying that yours was vandalism or clearly wrong to others. Just saying it was reflex to me. Second, you clearly sometimes read WP:Logical quotation differently than I and others do. It is relevant that the line in question is or is not a sentence fragment; this has been brought up time and time again at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. WP:Logical quotation is all about what is and what is not a partial quote. The line you reverted me on is a full quote, which just so happens to have had the word "said" in the middle of the sentence instead of at the end. This is no more a partial quote to me than if I had originally presented it without the word "said" as a pause. Also, I fail to see why you felt the need to bring this to the article talk page. Did I bring your recent wrongly-formatted edits here to this talk page? No. Because they were minor, and I knew that you would be able to see what I stated in my edit summaries. As you can see, this discussion only pertains to the two of us, and could have easily been had on my talk page. This is not the first time we have disagreed on a WP:Logical quotation matter, as I am sure you remember. Perhaps it should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, since people are clearly interpreting WP:Logical quotation differently at whatever time. And before you come back at me with the "Clearly, you are wrong" speak again, I again point you to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, where people often disagree on matters as well, even this. I would also appreciate you not saying how "one needs to use some common sense when deciding where to place sentence fragments" in regards to me, as if I am without it (common sense) or do not use it enough. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Flyer22, I like using article talk pages because 1) WP is ultimately about community, and the more feedback one receives, the more nuanced one's understanding can become; and 2) article talk can be seen as a repository of reflections that can be of use to future editors. I sometimes use article talk even when I don't expect anyone to reply, but nonetheless suspect that future editors might benefit from viewing the comment. And in this case, you mentioned that other editors had agreed with you, so it would seem fair to bring the issue to the attention of other editors. But if you'd prefer that I use your own talk page when a matter seems to be primarily between the two of us, I certainly can do that. Also, in my line about "common sense", I did not mean that you weren't using common sense when placing sentence fragments (recall that I didn't see how this was about sentence fragments in the first place); what I meant was to restate my understanding of a part of WP:LQ, so as to clarify why saw no connection between that part of LQ and the matter at hand. Anyway, sorry that a misunderstanding occurred. Perhaps there ultimately is something to be brought up at WT:MOS, but I fail to see any ambiguity in the line, "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." Therefore, because a period in that spot was not part of the quoted material, the period would go outside the quotation marks. That's why it's called "logical quotation": If A, then B. If not-A, then C. If no-period-is-in-quoted-material, then period-goes-outside-quotation-marks. Affirm the antecedent, thus accept the consequent. Pure, albeit prescriptive, logic. The exception occurs when logic has to step aside for pragmatism: If there is a period in the quoted material, and if the quoted material is a sentence fragment, then quoting the period along with the sentence fragment could disrupt the sentence flow, especially if the quotation is spliced into the middle of a new sentence. However, in this case, in the line in question for this article, there was no problematic period in the source, so the section of LQ about problematic periods would not seem to apply. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but I think that the confusion arises from your having done the same: LQ is, in my estimation, as simple as, "If the period is in the source, then it (maybe) ends up in the quotation marks; if the period is not in the source, then it (always) goes outside of the quotation marks." Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I would rather continue this discussion here than on my talk page. I would not want this discussion completely wiped from here or left as something that was discontinued. But whether you like using article talk pages or not, clearly some things are not for the article talk page. This is not the place for this discussion, in my view, because it is not necessarily about the article and certainly not as much anymore. You could argue that other editors will benefit in some way from this, such as learning about WP:Logical quotation, but I state that most of them will either not remember this discussion or will ignore it and its meaning. I say that because I have learned that most Wikipedia editors either do not pay attention to WP:Logical quotation or do not know about it, which is why I am always having to cite it and insert it. And when some do find out about it, they reject it; this is usually if they are American, like I am. They do this because it is "wrong" American-wise. There is also the fact of, as I stated before, editors interpreting WP:Logical quotation differently. You and I clearly do on this particular matter. The line "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." needs to be rewritten or at least expanded upon after that for clarity, because people obviously do not look at it the same. I do not take it as literally as some, and rather focus on what is after it (the stuff about sentence fragments). Let's take the debated line for example:

"They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side," said Cameron, "and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting."

How is the period that I left right where it is (at the end of the word "interesting") not a part of the quoted material? And if one wants to switch this focus to the commas before and after the words "said Cameron" and say that they are not a part of the quoted material, the same goes for when we relay these types of lines: "Cameron said Avatar is a genuine epic." When we write this, we may relay it as "Avatar is a genuine epic," said Cameron. In that case, the comma is also not a part of the quoted material, but we do not write it as "Avatar is a genuine epic", said Cameron (with the comma outside of the quoted material. Likewise, if a punctuation is a part of quoted material, but we relay it as a sentence fragment, the punctuation should still go outside of the quoted material. This is what I have seen done by editors quite familiar with using WP:Logical quotation.
If I am partly wrong in how I use WP:Logical quotation, I can accept that. We cannot all be right about everything. But perhaps we should bring in one of the considered experts on this topic from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or at least post a message there about this discussion? A I told you last time, a similar discussion like this was brought up before at Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon/Archive 1#WP:Logical quotation, and one of the considered experts stated that I was right. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm American as well, and I was completely oblivious to logical quotation before I started editing on here. But I (now) accept it as the most faithful way to represent quoted material. But if exact representation is the goal, I don't see how LQ can be interpreted in anything but the most literal sense--as if it were almost to photograph the quoted line. The period at the end of "interesting" is not part of the quoted material, for the simple reason that there is no period at the end of "interesting" in the source. There is, instead, a comma. Now, had the source itself used LQ, it wouldn't have put either a comma or a period there--no comma because Cameron's line per se wouldn't have ended with a comma; and no period because, although Cameron's line is a full sentence, it is followed in the source by the words, "he explained", and so does not end the source's quotation of the line. Perhaps you are saying that we should end Cameron's line with a period because his line was a full sentence that would properly be quoted with a period before the right quotation mark. This would be true if we were citing Cameron. But we're not citing Cameron; we're citing Eric Ditzian and MTV, who incidentally happen to be quoting Cameron in their source--and their source is of the secondary variety, which WP ideally treats as the source material. And Ditzian/MTV didn't put a period in the disputed spot, so neither should we. Finally, I realize that this discussion has become more about grammar than about Avatar, and I certainly don't want to detract or distract from more pertinent threads. But ultimately, I agree with you: The discussion started here, for better or for worse, so it might as well come to fruition here as well. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean on some points. You say that "had the source itself used LQ, it wouldn't have put either a comma or a period there--no comma because Cameron's line per se wouldn't have ended with a comma..." I ask, "What?" Nobody's actual comment ends with a comma. People are the ones to supply the commas when using "he said" or "she said" (or some other variety of it). Again, I point out that we relay full sentences as full sentences, not as sentence fragments. We state, "' Avatar is a genuine epic,' said Cameron," not "'Avatar is a genuine epic', said Cameron." The comma goes within the quoted material, not outside of it, even with logical quotation. I do not see how it matters that we're citing Eric Ditzian and MTV, who incidentally happen to be quoting Cameron in their source. WP:Logical quotation says nothing about "secondary variety." With most online interviews, we are citing the interviewer's interview of the subject. The way the interviewer presented things does not stop us from presenting full quotes as full quotes and sentence fragments as sentence fragments. In fact, we may choose to present a full quote as a sentence fragment. Saying that since "Ditzian/MTV didn't put a period in the disputed spot, so neither should we" is like saying we should always present a quote in the same structure as the source. Well, as I just stated, that simply is not true (we do not have to always present full quotes as full quotes here at Wikipedia, for example). As for reading WP:Logical quotation literally, did you read any part of the discussion I linked to above? In that discussion, I asked, "Also, in using the logical quotation guideline, should the period go outside of the quote for any type of sentence fragment (as I mentioned above)?" Editor Finell, the considered WP:Logical quotation expert I was speaking of above, clearly said, "Yes." His "yes" covers sentence fragments that may end with a period within the quoted material instead of outside the quoted material. That is how American style sentence fragments are done, but we do not do that here at Wikipedia (even if the interviewer chooses to). Thus, why should I go on your word about how WP:Logical quotation works, when others do not see it exactly as you do? This is not something that can be resolved between us, because people's interpretations of WP:Logical quotation differ; I need the thoughts of others on this matter, preferably the ones who are considered experts on it from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you infer, "the comma goes within the quoted material, not outside of it, even with logical quotation" from "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." The latter line seems to suggest, quite plainly, that if a comma at the end of a line is not part of the quoted material, then if a comma is needed on here, it would go outside the quotation marks. Again, I'm American; I was not taught this stuff in school, and I certainly could be missing something. But if I am, then it appears that WP:LQ is missing it as well. WP:LQ doesn't explicitly address the use of commas in the first place. I'm just going by what the current wording of the MoS says. Since it says that the placement of "all punctuation marks" on WP must reflect the placement of those marks within "the quoted material", and since commas fall within the category of "all punctuation marks", I assume that outside in the source means outside on WP, and likewise that inside there means inside here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
When I said that "the comma goes within the quoted material, not outside of it, even with logical quotation," I was speaking of that example. Wikipedia goes by logical quotation. We do not cease to go by it, simply because a source does not go by it. If a source were to have made a mistake in that example, by putting the comma outside of the quote, that does not mean that we should copy that source's mistake. As for being American, the British style places punctuations inside or outside the quotation marks according to whether or not the punctuation is part of the quoted material. I take "quoted material" to mean the format of the words, not how the source may have formatted the quote. Take, for example, when a man says, "I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar, but Titanic made me want to walk out of the theater." If a person knows even a bit of grammar, they know how that is supposed to be formatted; they do not need a source to tell them. It should be formatted just like I did it, unless it is delivered as a sentence fragment. If a source were to have put two commas after the word "Avatar" there, that does not mean that we should do the same. That is what I mean. The way that a source has relayed a quote does not stop us from following WP:Logical quotation. If it was simply about following how the source formats the quote, then the formatting explanation that WP:Logical quotation gives would simply tell us to format the quotes the way that the sources do. If a source ends a sentence fragment with its period within the quote, which they would likely do if American, I do not see how we are supposed to do the same...when we are supposed to be following WP:Logical quotation.
I am going to bring in editors from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style in on this. Hopefully, some of them will help. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The self-proclaimed experts help?

I saw Flyer22's post at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and I'm here to help. This is a rather lengthy and heated argument over punctuation. You have to be careful what you mean by "format". Punctuation is a matter of writing style, but not format. Punctuation is as much a part of text (including quoted text) as the words. Further, Wikipedia faithfully reproduces quoted material as is; Wikipedia's Manual of Style governs what Wikipedia's editors write. If you quote a block of text from a source, and the source places a comma inside quotation marks, we don't change that. If you quote sentence fragments, whether to include a trailing comma or period (i.e., full stop) depends on the context.

If you give the source text (or a link to it) and show me how it is being in quoted in the article, I can answer your question. I would rather not have to wade through this long argument or the article's edit history. Thanks.—Finell 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not say that it was a heated discussion; I was annoyed at first, but still managed not to get so annoyed that I was being harsh. Either way, Finell, thank you for weighing in. You say that Wikipedia faithfully reproduces quoted material as is. I have always followed that when it comes to words, unless altering a word with a bracket. If a source misspells a word, for example, I have seen that it is perfectly acceptable to correct the spelling with a bracket. Likewise, with other types of instances. An example would be if a source referred to James Cameron simply as James. If the source said, "James and I are friends," we could substitute that with "[Cameron] and I are friends," for consistency of WP:SURNAME. We are also allowed to relay quotes as sentence fragments; we do not have to relay a quote in its full format. Thus, I am not seeing how Wikipedia always faithfully reproduces quoted material as is. As for punctuation, no, I have not always reproduced text faithfully when it comes to that, seeing as I felt that the whole point of WP:Logical quotation was to have punctuations regarding the end of sentence fragments exist outside of the quotes (not within them). Linked above is a question I asked you some time ago. I asked, "Also, in using the logical quotation guideline, should the period go outside of the quote for any type of sentence fragment...?" You said, "Yes." Well, I took your "yes" to mean any type of sentence fragment, even those that may end with a period within the quoted material.
The debated line we were discussing above is this one:

"They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side," said Cameron, "and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting."

I had the word "interesting" end with the period inside of the quote, because it is not a sentence fragment. Another editor changed it to go outside of the quote. Then so did Cosmic Latte. I cannot see why the period should be outside of the quote, since it is not a sentence fragment. In that case, should it be...and why? Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I too an coming here because of Flyer22's post at WT:MOS. If I understand the discussion above correctly, the indented line above is from an interview with Cameron. That is, it is MTV transcribing Cameron's words. I'm going to assume that this is the only source, and that the source was originally printed (i.e., that it is not a transcription of someone talking about his interview with Cameron).
Logical quotation specifies that the sequence of characters that appear inside the quotation marks must be the same as the sequence of characters outside the quotation marks, excepting omissions at the beginning and end to make the sentence grammatical and a very few other cases. One of those other cases is editorial clarifications using brackets; another is correcting typographical slips such as misspellings (except when those slips are somehow important to understanding the text). None of these cases seem relevant here (but again, correct me if I don't understand the context). But usually, you can't change or insert characters. Thus:
Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting."
Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting".
Avatar is "kind of interesting", according to Cameron.
but not:
Avatar is "kind of interesting," according to Cameron.
Now, in the first sentence above, I would rather have the period inside the quotation marks because I think that's more aesthetically pleasing. But both are allowable under logical quotation because the period appears in the source. Contrast this with the last example, which is not allowable because a comma appears between the quotation marks but there's no comma in the source.
Does this help? Ozob (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The question couldn't be answered without the context (i.e., based just on what Flyer22 quoted in his last post. However, I looked at the source interview. Wikipedia is quoting MTV quoting Cameron. Wikipedia is not quoting Cameron directly. This really isn't a sentence fragment question. It appears that MTV quoted an entire sentence that Cameron spoke, but replaced the "spoken" period with a comma (which is valid typographical, not logical, quotation) and appended he explained to the end of the quotation. To avoid confusion, it is preferable not to interject said Cameron in the middle of a full-sentence quotation.
I would not complain about the article's current solution, which keeps the comma at the end of Cameron's sentence inside the closing quotation mark (as it is in our source, which is MTV), and adds said Cameron at the end. A slightly more precise solution would be to block quote the entire paragraph from the MTV article.
Hypothetically, on the other hand, if Wikipedia were quoting Cameron directly (instead of quoting MTV) and if Wikipedia interjected said Cameron (which I would still advise against, although it is less troublesome without an intermediate source), the period would belong inside the closing quotation mark, because Cameron's full sentence would be quoted. Personally, I would not approve Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting." Even if the period were in the printed source, we would not be quoting the sentence as such, but only three words, so I would put the period after the closing quotation mark because it ends Wikipedia's sentence; that it also happens to end Cameron's sentence is mere coincidence.—Finell 06:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually disagree with one part of this. Wikipedia is not quoting MTV quoting Cameron. Wikipedia is, quite explicitly, quoting Cameron, and using MTV as a reliable source for its information about what Cameron said. (Notice that MTV is not mentioned anywhere in the article proper, only in the footnotes.) So any trailing punctuation that goes inside our quotation marks here is an assertion, by us, about what it is that Cameron said. That is, with a trailing comma inside our quotation marks we assert that this was not the end of Cameron's sentence, or, with a trailing period inside our quotation marks we would assert that this was the end of Cameron's sentence. And because the MTV article is using typesetter's quotation, we really don't know whether or not this is the end of Cameron's sentence. We only know that MTV didn't reproduce any more of Cameron's words. Spoken language does sometimes lend itself to long meandering sentences that just keep tacking more clauses onto the end. Since we can't tell, any trailing punctuation inside our quotation marks can only be speculative. --Pi zero (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The period is not present in the original source, so placing it inside the quotation marks is not consistent with LQ. Ozob is correct (and has aptly demonstrated) that LQ does not require a Wikipedia editor to remove closing punctuation that is present in the source, though it remains an option in almost all cases.
That being said, if the point of having LQ as part of the MoS is to preserve the quality of the quotation, then we should also preserve any original punctuation contained within that quotation, even if it is not a popular style. It is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to preserve the punctuation as the source's writer saw fit to put it down. If Cameron did not feel that he was misquoted, then why should Wikipedia?
I would like to add that while WYSIWYG might be important in computer programming, it is less so in prose writing. While some of the edit in question aren't LQ, they also aren't in the least confusing or misleading about what Cameron said or how he said it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding of the point of using LQ. The point is to maximize the accurate information that we provide (while not providing any inaccurate information), about whatever it is that we are providing information about. In a quotation, we are providing information about what was said/written by whoever it is that we ascribe it to. In this case, we are ascribing it to Cameron; that is, we claim that Cameron said it; that is, the sentence ends with the words "said Cameron", not with the words "said MTV". The quotation marks mean that, according to us, Cameron said exactly what is between the quotation marks. It would have been possible (though not reasonable) for us to quote MTV, in which case we would be providing information about what MTV said/wrote. Here is an example of what that would look like:
According to MTV,
It's a storytelling similarity that even Cameron acknowledges. "They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side, and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting," he explained.
A critical point here is that, exactly because MTV is using TQ, MTV is not ascribing the trailing comma to Cameron. Under TQ, any trailing puncutation mark is part of the surrounding prose in which the quote is embedded, not part of the quoted material. (In fact, it would be impossible for MTV to ascribe any trailing punctuation to Cameron, even if they wanted to, unless they resort to a block quote.) So the trailing comma would be included when we quote MTV, but not when we quote Cameron. When we are quoting Cameron, including the trailing comma within our quotation marks would be purveying false information — it would be asserting that we know the comma is due to Cameron, when in fact we do not know whether Cameron ended his sentence there. --Pi zero (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
But the source isn't Cameron. It's MTV. I feel that the tag and citation make that clear enough, but if not, we can always add the words "in an MTV interview."
Including closing quotation marks is not consistent with LQ, but it neither is it "purveying false information." It is by definition a style of punctuation in which it is understood that the comma or period is part of the process. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who or what the source is, as long as we have a reliable source, and as long as we faithfully convey to our readers what the reliable source conveyed to us... about what Cameron said. The reason we have written this sentence in our article is that we want to tell the reader what Cameron said. Our information about what Cameron said comes from MTV, and we are bound to faithfully reproduce what MTV told us about what Cameron said. MTV did not tell us whether or not the quoted words were the entirety of Cameron's sentence, therefore we cannot truthfully claim that MTV did tell us whether there was more to the sentence. When using TQ, as the MTV article does, the closing comma is not part of the quoted material. That is, the closing comma is not part of what MTV told us about what Cameron said. LQ preserves the quoted material, and therefore the trailing comma is not part of what LQ preserves. --Pi zero (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If we say that the MTV article is a reliable source, then we're saying that we're trusting the interviewer's judgment to the point where we assume that he or she wrote everything down correctly. While we do not know whether Cameron would have used a period or comma if writing down the sentence himself, we can reasonably expect that the MTV interviewer omitted only irrelevant information such as "ahs" and "ums." If we assume otherwise, then we must discard the source as unreliable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am assuming that the interviewer did not misrepresent Cameron's meaning, and that therefore if the sentence actually went on in a meaningful way beyond what is quoted, then the meaning of the addendum was such that its omission does not alter the sense of what was included in the quote, and does not compromise the validity of the paragraph in which the quote occurs. That is, in the usual idiom, the interviewer didn't take Cameron's remarks "out of context". This does not preclude the possibility that there might have been something substantive in this hypothetical addendum to the sentence — I'd give it maybe a seventy or even eighty percent change that no such addendum actually occurred, that Cameron did end his sentence there, but that's speculation on my part. And if there were a substantive addendum, we have no way of knowing how the interviewer would prefer to see the whole sentence punctuated. --Pi zero (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but this is not an LQ vs. AQ/BQ issue. It's an is-the-author-reliable issue. The problem is neither created nor solved by the punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this particular subthread is in the final stages of shifting its center of mass from here to the MOS thread. --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for weighing in. I really appreciate this help. But even though you all have done great at explaining, I am even more confused about who was right on this matter because of the different views. Does this not mean that WP:Logical quotation needs a bit of a rewrite? Right now, it seems that Cosmic Latte and I were both correct. I am female, by the way.

Ozob, you say that Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting." would be allowable under logical quotation because the period appears in the source. But wouldn't that go against WP:Logical quotation, since we would be relaying that as a sentence fragment with the period within the quote? And if it is allowed because that is the way the source did it and we should present the period that way as well, then how is putting the period outside of the quote also allowed (as seen in one of your other examples)? Further, now that it has been addressed to you that the period is not in the source at that part, but rather a comma is, does this mean that we should not put the period there within the quotation marks even if we present the full quote? Not ever in this type of case? I ask all of you...is this true? If so, it would seem that Cosmic Latte was correct. For example, I am sure that it would be acceptable to start the sentence the other way, with the "Cameron said," part first, and then end it with a period.

Pi zero, I agree that "Wikipedia is not quoting MTV quoting Cameron. Wikipedia is, quite explicitly, quoting Cameron, and using MTV as a reliable source for its information about what Cameron said." That is what I basically stated above: "I do not see how it matters that we're citing Eric Ditzian and MTV, who incidentally happen to be quoting Cameron in their source... With most online interviews, we are citing the interviewer's interview of the subject." (A small percentage of online interviews are video only interviews, is what I mean.)

And, Finell, I would put this quote in blockquote format if it were four lines long. But it is only three lines long, on my screen anyway, and blockquotes are supposed to be for paragraphs that are four lines or longer. Besides, we are trying to avoid blockquotes in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, you may wish to take a look at the recently added remarks on the MOS thread. If my posting there mistakes your position, please leave a note there setting the record straight. --Pi zero (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
With regard to Ozob's example, Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting.", this is one of the times when LQ differs from standard British punctuation. BQ would place the period outside all the time because the stop occurs outside the quoted material. However, because LQ concerns itself only with which characters were and were not part of the source material and not with the location of the grammatical stop, it permits Wikipedia editors to choose whether or not to include original closing punctuation, such as periods and commas. When the source has a period after "interesting," both Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting." and Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting". are consistent with LQ.
And yes, I would also like it if you, Flyer, and Cosmic took a look at WT:MoS. If we're going to improve the text of WP:LQ, then it would be best if we knew exactly what needs improvement. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Pi zero and Darkfrog. And, Darkfrog, I appreciate you explaining Ozob's example. Also, Darkfrog, is it best to have the "in an MTV interview." part? I mean, we do not specify the source of the interviews for all or even most of Cameron's statements...and it would make for a bumpy flow if we did. Specifying "in an MTV interview." seems unnecessary, and it leads readers to believe that Cameron's comments right after that are also from that MTV interview. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Finell, I smirked at the new title you added for this subsection (the change from Section break to The self-proclaimed experts?). I did not call you all self-proclaimed experts. I was only saying that you all are the considered experts...on this matter. But if you feel that title is best, I can live with that. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Summing up

This is really a very good article: well organized, thorough, well written, and well sourced. The editors responsible for it should be proud. I hope you are planning to bring it to FA quality.

More than enough has already been said about the quotation question, but I won't let that stop me from saying more.

First, let's focus on the end result, rather than philosophy. I said above, "I would not complain about the article's current solution, which keeps the comma at the end of Cameron's sentence inside the closing quotation mark (as it is in our source, which is MTV), and adds said Cameron at the end." Is there anyone here who does complain about that solution? In the absence of substantial objection, that should be the end of the matter, and the rest of the discussion is academic.

In case some did object, I also said, "A slightly more precise solution would be to block quote the entire paragraph from the MTV article." (I said "block quote", but Flyer22 correctly points out that it is too short to block.) Rewriting the lead in to avoid redundancy, that would look like this:

For the love story between characters Jake and Neytiri, Cameron applied a star-crossed love theme, similarity to his pairing of Jack and Rose in Titanic. Both couples come from radically different cultures that are contemptuous of their relationship and are forced to choose sides between the competing communities."It's a storytelling similarity that even Cameron acknowledges. 'They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side, and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting,' he explained."[69]

This solution avoids any question about changing punctuation. Does anyone object to this solution? Again, in the absence of substantial objection, that should be the end of the matter, and the rest of the discussion is academic.

Second, only for those of us who actually enjoy the academic discussion, I offer the following points:

  1. The logical quotation style of punctuation, which deals only with end punctuation, is not the only guideline at issue here. I don't even think that it is the most important one. The main issues here are faithful quotation (the guideline on minimal change) and proper attribution (saying where we got it).
  2. The purpose of the Cameron quote in this article is to show what he, the screenplay's author, said about the similarity of the couples in Avatar and in his own Titanic. Nevertheless, despite some comments to the contrary, Wikipedia is quoting MTV quoting Cameron—specifically, something that Cameron reportedly said to MTV's interviewer. Wikipedia can't quote what Cameron said directly because Wikipedia didn't hear it from Cameron (if there were a publicly available recording of what Cameron said, we could quote and cite that, and it would be verifiable because a reader or editor could listen to the same recording) and Cameron didn't write it down (an MTV interviewer did).
  3. MTV is a sufficiently reliable source to use for the quotation of Cameron and for whatever else the article says. But reliable doesn't mean infallible, so we are still quoting MTV quoting Cameron.
  4. Citation of the MTV article is sufficient to indicate that Wikipedia is quoting MTV, not Cameron: the reader sees who the article's author is, and that it isn't Cameron. It is unnecessary, and awkward, to introduce the quotation with According to MTV, in the body of the article, as someone suggested above. Since yesterday, someone changed the ending of the sentence, after the quotation, as follows: said Cameron in an MTV interview. That is less awkward, but still unnecessary, and a bit less precise than the citation alone. "According to MTV" would be accurate, but unnecessarily implies that we don't quite trust MTV.
  5. Knowing how journalism works, we can be fairly sure that Cameron didn't utter exactly the words that MTV quotes him as saying. The article's author would have "copy edited" what Cameron said (perhaps fixed grammar or usage errors, and certainly omitted umms, ahs, false starts, etc.); an editor may have further copy edited the article author's version. Further, we know that MTV added all the punctuation because Cameron was speaking; the punctuation may have been based on Cameron's inflection, on normal punctuation guidelines, or on a combination. None of this is a problem: it is what editors do all the time, to authors of printed matter as well as to quotations of speakers. But it is another reason why Wikipedia is quoting MTV quoting Cameron.
  6. Based on the way MTV presented the quotation plus the fact that the quotation standing by itself is a complete sentence, we can be reasonably sure that the quotation is a complete sentence, and MTV replaced the "spoken" period with a comma before the closing quotation mark. We would be a bit surer if MTV had written, Cameron explained, "They both ... interesting." We would be very sure if MTV rigorously used logical quotation.—Finell 05:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the solution of keeping the "he explained" with the source's comma. It is a compromise that compromises nothing. (And we should probably note that Flyer and Cosmic arrived at it before we got here, making this discussion comfortably academic.)
The issue causing confusion here seems to be not what LQ requires but whether to treat this source as an audio source or a written one.
Your point six makes me uncomfortable. This issue would not have arisen if MTV used LQ, but neither would it have arisen if this Wikipedia article used AQ. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The version on the page just now is
"They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side, and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting," said Cameron in an MTV interview.[69]
As I have been pointing out, this is a violation of LQ (which is to say, a violation of the principle of minimal change as applied to trailing punctuation), because it is an inaccurate representation of what the MTV interview ascribes to Cameron. The MTV interview does not ascribe any trialing punctuation to Cameron's words; in fact, the MTV interview is incapable of ascribing any trailing punctuation to Cameron's words, unless it resorted to the absurdity of a block quote, because the MTV interview is using TQ. Under TQ, any trailing punctuation is not part of the quoted material, but rather is part of the mechanical process of delimiting the quoted material.
I'm having difficulty, Finell, working out what you meant by your WP-quoting-MTV-quoting-Cameron remarks. My understanding of X is quoting Y is that X is presenting material inside quotation marks, and X is ascribing that material to Y. According to that understanding of quoting (which I realize may not be the sense you are using), in your proposed solution version, WP is quoting MTV, and in the passage quoted by WP, MTV is quoting Cameron; while in the current version I've shown above, WP is quoting Cameron, and MTV is the source of WP's information. Are you using the term quoting in a different sense (and if so, what)? --Pi zero (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Finell and Pi zero, I also brought up the "in an MTV interview." part above, to Darkfrog (just now). And, Finell, I would say that I am for letting it stay as the current solution I and Cosmic Latte worked out before I sought help from you all. But I want to point out that the MTV source is also an audio one (as it seems Darkfrog recently pointed out as well). Maybe that interview was longer than the clip we got, but the clip we got shows Cameron speaking the debated quote. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I really appreciate the wonderful comments you have made about the work on this article. Yes, the primary editors of this article have really worked as a team, and feel a bit like family. We do not always agree, and we have our little tiffs (LOL), but we work quite well together. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If the MTV source is an audio one, and if he really does end a sentence there, then (obviously) you can put a period there. But if it's written, and if we don't have any audio to back it up, then all we have to go on is the comma. As Pi zero points out above, the comma really doesn't give us any information; nevertheless, it's what's in our source. This is something that the MoS doesn't really address, because it assumes the source is always and completely infallible. The easiest solution here, I think, is to either cite an audio source or leave the punctuation outside the quotation. Ozob (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/11/religious-left-editor-%E2%80%9Cavatar%E2%80%9D-illustrates-israeli-oppression-by-mark-d-tooley/
  2. ^ http://www.realbollywood.com/news/2009/12/avatar-movie-review.html
  3. ^ http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/11/religious-left-editor-%E2%80%9Cavatar%E2%80%9D-illustrates-israeli-oppression-by-mark-d-tooley/
  4. ^ http://www.murmur.com/tv_film/james_camerons_avatar_spreads_allegory_thick_as_tar.html
  5. ^ http://www.teenink.com/reviews/movie_reviews/article/160790/Avatar/
  6. ^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (2009-12-19). "'Avatar' takes $27 million in its first day". Variety. Reed Business Information. Retrieved 2010-01-11. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  7. ^ Douglas, Edward (December 21, 2009). "Avatar Soars Despite Heavy Snowstorms". ComingSoon.net. CraveOnline. Retrieved December 21, 2009.
  8. ^ Reporting by Dean Goodman; editing by Anthony Boadle (December 20, 2009). ""Avatar" leads box office, despite blizzard". Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved December 20, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ "All time worldwide box office grosses". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved January 8, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ Rosenberg, Adam (January 8, 2010). "'Avatar' Sequel Confirmed By James Cameron... And Here's What We'd Like To See". MTV. Retrieved January 11, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)/Archive_20&oldid=1146682525"