Talk:Jason Voorhees

Other Jasons

Glen Ennis was hired to play Jason in the most dangerous stunt scenes for Freddy vs Jason. There have been reports that the Jason in the flashback at the beginning of Part 5 was John Hock. See here and here. I know these sources aren't the best but I feel like these people should be mentioned in the prose at least since it is relevant information to the portrayal of the character. Does anyone know if there have been any interviews or similar that mention these contributions?★Trekker (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't typically mention stunt people that filmed a couple of scenes. They are credited as "stunt man" for a reason in those films, because they did a stunt they didn't want the regular portrayer to do. We wouldn't mention every stunt person that subs in for Robert Englund in Freddy scenes, because they are doing stunt work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well maybe I differ than most people on the topic but I'd feel like stunt people should be mentioned to. Without them many films wouldn't get made. And in the case of Jason most of what he does is stunts of different kinds, I mean it's not like any of the people who did the role were really known as actors before the role or after. Except maybe Mears.★Trekker (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

They aren't known as "actors" in most situations, but a random scene here and there that requires a separate stuntworker isn't relevant to the portrayal of the character. If there was something specific that they added to the character, maybe. But what you're talking about is really more relevant to specific films, not the character article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel like "something specific that they added to the character" is a pretty vague description and by that logic why would we mention Tom Morga who was only in a flashbacks in a few scenes in Part 5 too? I mean in the end many people would say that it was only really Hodder who made a distinct personality for Jason in his performances. I think picking and choosing who gets mentioned is a little weird. I mean the article does actually mention Douglas Tait who did one single scene for Freddy vs Jason. If there is a reliable source why not include it. It's not like it would make the article overly long.★Trekker (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Because Tom Morga is literally credited as Jason. Tait was brought in to film a whole new ending because Kirzinger couldn't be on set at the time. The other people you are talking about are just filming dangerous stunts. That's a film thing, not a character thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Why eaxctly does Tait's situation make it ok for him to be mentioned? Most people wouldn't say Jason has much specific character from the performances alone anyway so why are we deciding which people deserve to be mentioned and which don't? Why would Wikipedia go only on who is credited or not? Are film companies even reliable sources?★Trekker (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You're specifically trying to mention some stuntwork that brought on stuntdoubles for more dangerous scenes. THat's hardly a portrayal. Tait filmed a completely new scene, that's borderline and only the reason it's mentioned. If we get into the habit of mentioning stunt people then we have to start mentioning everyone and it's just indiscriminate information. It doesn't add anything. It's more relevant to the actual film articles, not to Jason. Including them is like saying that their quick fall through a building is somehow of equal weight as the other people that perform the role. It isn't and most of the time it's so quick it's barely even seen on the screen. Those additions should be brought to the film pages, not relevant here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well that's all just your opinion.★Trekker (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi protection?

I'm seeing a persistent level of low level vandalism on this article. Some obvious, and some not so. It seems to be mostly quickly reverted, and there appears in balance to be positive edits by IP editors who would be excluded if the article were semi-protected, so the need for protection is not obvious. Do those who edit this article regularly feel it warrants semi-protection, or can the vandalism be managed? See Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection for guidance on assessing if an article needs protection. SilkTork (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we generally have it under control. I appreciate you fixing that last bit, as I hadn't checked the page yet from my watchlist of recent changes. Right now I don't think it's reached a problematic level.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Add image to 'Appearances' sectioin?

Bignole I read your comment on the removal of the image in the 'Appearances' section and I understand the rationale behind it. Do you agree that the section would benefit from something to break up the text, and if so what type of thing do you think could add value? Ta Vanteloop (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't. There does not need to be an image in ever section. It's a plot section, so there isn't a need for an image in a plot section anyway. See WP:IMAGERELEVANCE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the response. Vanteloop (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Creating a monster"

On this revert restoring the headings of Creating a monster and Men behind the mask (rather than Development and Actors), is this kind of language not discouraged by MOS:HEAD saying that headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles, presumably including should be a recognizable name or description of the topic? I'd also expect WP:TONE to apply, that even pop culture articles are written with a formal tone.

The dramatic headings don't seem entirely clear here. "Men behind the mask" may just as plausibly be about the special effects team who developed the costume. And if read idiomatically, "Creating a monster" would suggest the character moving out of the original writer's control in a way that they regretted. Belbury (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd suggest changing them the previous the mentioned titles here. I know articles about popular culture icons are generally pretty fun, but we kind of want them to be easy to find and read and be searchable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I hardly consider those "dramatic" titles, the description you use would be dramatic. These are not new headers, nor is that part of the guideline new. So, why would this not have been brought up in the peer review or FAC from 16 years ago? "Description of the topic" is exactly what those headers are. "Development" is vague, and article titles are not supposed to be vague. "Actors" is inaccurate, as not all of the people that played Jason were actors, not to mention the section discusses a lot of the stand-ins and stunt work that goes into the character. Saying "men behind the mask" could be indicative of the special effects team insinuates that Jason is noting more than a mask, which isn't true.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I am more in the middle for my thoughts on this. I think that we can have titles that are not overtly dramatic while not being generic. For my edits on the other horror Icon Leatherface, I changed the character development and men behind the mask sub sections to "Developing the Killer" and "Portrayers" in order to have a balance between being noicable and not overtly dramatic.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

To me, "Creating a monster" is the only "dramatic" (or hyperbolic if you will) header. I don't see "Men behind the mask" as dramatic in the slightest and very accurate to what the section is about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. Maybe change the first sub-heading to "Creating a Slasher" or something of that sort because Slasher films were defined by the time Jason made his debute, whereas Leatherface did not debut around that timeframe.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As a reader only passingly familiar with the films, I would not have been able to guess with confidence which of several possible meanings "Men behind the mask" had in the table of contents. The fact that it's a subheading of "Concept and creation" would probably lean it more towards being a costume/writing team prior to casting and filming. --Belbury (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Just because you cannot "guess" (and I question that - as why would you assume writing team with "behind the masK"...it isn't a euphemism) what it could mean, doesn't mean that it isn't descriptive to the section. I could argue your same point by the header "Characterization". Does that mean in-universe, does that mean real world characterization....That's why you read the section. Within 10 seconds of reading the first 2 sentences you know exactly what you're reading about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

For "Creating a monster", we could change it to "Developing Jason", to be less hyperbolic in description.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Deceloping Jason makes more sense to me. Honestly, before reading the article "Men Behind the Mask" could sound easily be interpreted to me as being about the actors portraying Jason to being about the creative team who wrote the character. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

For me "Developing Jason" would not fit because the entire article is already about him so I think something that fits with who the character is will be more adequate rather than just using his name in a sub section.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The entire article is not about his development. It goes into his reception and plot-oriented items within the films as well, so that's simply not the case. Several other Featured Articles also go into statements as the one above such as Master Chief (Halo) or Lightning (Final Fantasy). Honestly, I don't even know why we need the "Jason" part of the phrase, as you are already on the article. It's not like he goes through various names. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It was a suggestion, but to me I don't like "Development" or "Developing Jason", because it's vague and just as easily the same thing as "Concept and creation" (the main header for the section). It denotes the same thing whether you're talking about the initial writing, his personality characteristics, or the literal development of his mask across multiple films. But I cede the notion that "Creating a monster" isn't very accurate to the section either, because it doesn't actually convey what the section is about.

The fact that you can interpret "Men behind the mask" differently doesn't mean it isn't accurate the section, and reading the section immediately answers the question as to what it is about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

They shouldn't have to read the content. The headings are for people to find the content they are looking for. But creating a monster or making a slasher isn't much better. Perhaps the heading before hand should be more broad to make "Creation" make more sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I get with that, but "Men behind the mask" is not so far out there that the average person (Belbury excluded apparently) wouldn't assume it's referring to the actors/stuntmen who played Jason. As for "Creating a monster", again I'm no longer advocating for it to stay. I'm saying that "Development" is basically the same thing a "Concept and creation", which is the main header. Maybe we ditch the subheading of "Creating a mnonster" altogether and just leave that as the opening bit of information before it dovetails into 2 subsections of the actors and the physical design of Jason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe I made it clear because it sounds like it could easily be about actors portraying Jason or about the actual creation. I'm going to lean towards a more contemporary FA (Jill Valentine) We can probably lose the first head line and just have it under development and have the other just say "Actors" as the Jill Valentine one goes into the voice actors and such for that character. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Lose the first headline", do you mean "Creating a monster" or do you mean "Concept and Creation"? As for the Jill Valentine analogy, again, there's nothing wrong with "Men behind the mask". Jill Valentine is also not as well known and iconic as Jason Voorhees. You acknowledge that the header is understood to be the people portraying Jason. I don't subscribe to this notion that headers should be these tasteless titles like "Actors" or "Writers". There is no guideline that says headers are supposed to be bland. They are supposed to be descriptive and not contain redundancy to the article itself. We write professionally, but professional does not mean bland. Part of the criteria for a featured article is that it is supposed to be "engaging" (word from the FA criteria). Would you feel better if we changed it from "Men" to "Actors behind the mask"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether someone is iconic or not is not something you can bank on as the term is relatively meaningless. To some people she is, to others not. It's not about the term "Men" or "Monster" or "Slasher", it's more so just to have a clear thing for people to read about. If I have any vaguely wiki etiquette issues with the title, it's more so about "WP:IMPARTIAL" which encourages neutral characterization. Basically, "Making a monster" sounds like fan page material. I wouldn't visit the Mariah Carey article and see a headline called "Entry into Pop Stardom" for a few reasons: it makes it sound like that logically through the development that Pop stardom was the only conclusion that could happen. Similar to "making a horror icon" or "making a monster" gives it a bit of grandness when we have to remain neutral. I agree they are fun, and I enjoy reading them like this, but it should be played a bit more straight. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are we still talking about the "Making a monster" subheading as if we are in disagreement over changing it? I've already said I understand the issue. When I asked about it in my past response, was because I wasn't sure if you were saying just get rid of "Making a monster" (my most recent suggestion) or get rid of "Concept and Creation" (which would still require changing "Making a monster"). Your words were: "We can probably lose the first head line and just have it under development" --- I was not sure what you were referring to specifically.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I pointed this out before with the Jill Valentine article where after the first heading it just has has prose, no subsection. Following that it has a section for actors with a sub-heading. I think that would solve our issues. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed "Creating a monster" as unneeded. I don't see any real issue with "Men behind the mask" though. It's a greater leap to assume it means "writing staff" instead of "actors/stuntmen".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Because it can be used for many interpretations. For example, here's a book on famous Universal horror make-up artists Jack Pierce using a similar title here, it can easily be interpreted as "Behind the Scenes" opposed to in front of the camera, especially without any other headings. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

"The Man behind the monsters" doesn't give the same impression as "Men behind the mask", especially when you're looking at an article about a singular character versus a book specifically about a special effects artist. It's called context. You cannot point to a similar title that has different context and say it's the same thing. Until someone decided that "Creating a monster" was "too dramatic", we've never in 16 years had confusion over this section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

How does this sound, to remove some "confusion". "Men under the mask"? I really doubt there should be any question that we're talking about the people that have portrayed Jason and not "writers".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean all of this is down to opinion and I've given several examples, you have not, and I can't find any other articles about pop culture icons that do this. I've gives my reasons why I think it's not good, provided several examples (for example, other fictional character articles don't do this) and per MOS:AT, "should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles." As stated above, this is neither consistent with other articles nor is it neutral. This rules applies to headings and article tiles. There is also WP:COMMON that states "just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation." In this case, yes there isn't a specific rule we've found that says you shouldn't give colourful titles, but other than "it's been like this for years" or "I don't think people would be confused!" aren't really satisfying as I've clarified how they are. If we can't come to an agreement here, I'll ask some wikiprojects to chime in and hopefully we can come to a conclusion here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If by "agreement" you mean only your way then you're right, we can't. I have actually provide multiple alternative that still keep in line with having an engaging article, but an accurate header.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not about keeping engagement, it's the content. No professional encyclopedia would attempt to just do this and you have no provided me with anything that suggests otherwise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted it to be less confusing. We aren't a "professional encyclopedia" first; they don't write for engagement. We do write for engagement as it's part of the criteria for featured article status. Even so, the content is fine. The header is just fine. It has existed for 16 years without a problem, and gone through a peer review and FAC. You want to point to other examples, but there aren't any other examples of fictional characters who are icons that have had multiple people portraying them across time. You pointed to Jill Valentine, which only contains a section listing (in prose) the people that have voiced her or portrayed here. The "Men under the mask" section isn't some simple list of people that have put on the mask. It's way more detailed into what went into those performances and how they were selected (or replaced). There is not additional content to that Jill Valentine section (we won't talk about how it uses a single subjection, which goes against writing guidelines). I would argue you picked an inferior article for comparison to suggest that this article is somehow doing something wrong.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you show me any rule or standard that something existing a long time is a reason to keep it? I'm going by a contemporary FA, not one that happened to pass in the 2000s and has not been reviewed since. I've also shared several other featured articles and none of headlines like this and went through several rules stating that they should be obvious what they are. As it's only you and me discussing, I have reached out to communities to get second opinion on this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Just go with the blandly descriptive headers, such as "development" and "actors". As a reader, I dislike it when people try to get cute with headers and titles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Article issues to be FA?

As Andrzejbanas and Belbury noted, there is just some issue with the headline title, but aside from that, the article has a serious problem when it comes to sourcing and overreliance of the book of Bracke as a source, creating possibly WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. Most of the sources are poorly formatted or cited, with no authors, dates of publication, websites that aren't italicized, access dates, etc.; usage of DVD as a source for its appearance in films, with questionable sources for refs 25, 26,  37, ref 38, ref 39, ref 40, ref 41, refs 47–52, refs 62, 66, 69,  72, ref 87, ref 90, ref 99 (also dead sources), refs 102, and ref 106.

At the reception section, this definitely needs to be organized properly. Another questionable sources, such as ref 121 to 125, ref 127, and ref 128, seems to be a low-quality source, as do ref 115, ref 131, ref 133, ref 135 (YouTube), ref 137, ref 138, ref 141 and 142, ref 144 to 148, and ref 150 to 153. Listing this to FAR notice. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

+ We have a quote box in the reception section, and it is literally cited as a line from an Eminem song. This is not what we want from the FA article. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That is my issue too. It comes off as fancrufty, especially the quote box. So what? I'm sure a dozen metal bands have had some Jason songs, and not just one-off lines. Imagine a featured article on "Spam" that does that for the Weird Al song of the same name. Andrzejbanas (talk)` Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)