Talk:Ocean's Eleven

Critics?

Support for the critical success claim could be given by mentioning that it scored 80% "fresh" at rottentomatoes.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.184.233.232 (talk • contribs) 04:10, May 4, 2006 (UTC)

Don Cheadle

Does anyone know why Don Cheadle was uncredited in this movie? Was it an accident or was it his choice? If it was his choice, why? 24.62.27.66 21:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably because of that ridiculous accent that is from a part of Britain not yet discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.103.87 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 July 2006

My guess is for the same reason that Julia Roberts is credited as "and introducing" - its most likely a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 August 2006

The accent is certainly a joke - not since Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins has such an excruciatingly lame attempt at a 'British' accent been screened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.49.243 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 28 May 2007

According to Wikipedia, Don Cheadle removed his name from the credits when it wasn't allowed to appear above the title in Ocean's Eleven (2001), presumably because his name would have alphabetically preceded George Clooney's and, unlike with the later sequels, the cast above the title was presented alphabetically (Clooney, Matt Damon, Andy García, Brad Pitt, and Julia Roberts).[2] The producers apparently wanted Clooney, not Cheadle, to be the first name a casual viewer of the advertising would see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.110.164.150 (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That might explain why his name isn't on the poster (...or maybe because he isn't a main character) but that doesn't explain why his is uncredited in the credits of the film. Also, since the information you have quoted from this article is unsourced, I have removed it. - Kollision (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis

Why is the summary so crappy and without any detail. It is truly an ingenius plot, and deserves credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.211.143 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 June 2006

It is incredible detailed...which could be part of it...and also you don't want to spoil too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 August 2006

It's also copied verbatim from the "Fan Page" linked at the bottom. I think another, more detailed, plot summary would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.0.53 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 October 2006

Plot Hole

In the DVD commentary Steven Soderbergh and Ted Griffin acknowledge a certain plot hole: How did the crew get the flyers of the hookers in the vault in the first place?

True. An additional hole was getting Yen AND THE BRIEFCASE THAT WAS BEING SENT BY BENEDICT`S PEOPLE TO THE VAULT through the 1st security door by the mormon twins. Additionally the "I forgot my passkey" explaination is sloppy. Earlier in the movie the robbers removed the (single) guard at the door by the "baloon boy" play so that the Electrician (who did have the passkey) wouldn`t be recognised as an intruder. In the "Getting Yen into the vault" occassion there are two guards and neither of them suspects the twins who DON`T have the passkey. While the dispairity in number of guards could be explained by an assumption that the electronics room and the Vault in fact have separate enterances from the casino (i.e. those are not the same doors in question - hence the passkey from the first would`nt work on the second), the more lax security guards at the enterance to the Vault simply couldn`t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.121.79 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 October 2006

-I think the plothole that was mentioned basically said that several bags went up the elevator and into the hands of Benedict's men when there was no one to put them there.--68.193.113.43 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• The hooker flyers and the bags seem bulky - although the bags would not be so when folded tight, and the bags may have been packed with only a few flyers and a lot of low-density paper fill. If so, then the bags and fill could have been in the cart that contained Yen. Darcyj (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This, part of the Plot synopsis, is incorrect: "Saul sneaks explosives into the casino vault by posing as a wealthy international arms dealer who needs especially secure safekeeping for his valuables and then pretends to have a heart attack that is treated by Rusty posing as a doctor." Saul doesn't sneak any explosives into the vault. His purpose in having the "heart attack" is to distract all the security people from watching the monitors, while Livingston replaces their actual video feed with the pre-recorded, deceptive feed. The jewels in Saul's briefcase may be real, or not (I don't remember), but they're not explosives. Also, re the hook flyers, I read somewhere that Soderbergh acknowledged that that was a plot hole, and that there was no way for those many heavy bags (marked with X's) to get into the vault. It's either a mistake, or cheating. 142.129.120.13 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Plot device

Basher's "pinch" is not a real McGuffin, as I've recently edited. What is the correct name for a "black box" plot device like this? --Wetman 06:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The "pinch" is more like an electromagnetic bomb, and its design is just like it. An EMP bomb is designed to knock out power sources, and it's construction is basically a coiled bomb. check it in in wiki. it's fictional in a sense that it's this powerful, but humanity is really close to achieving it (last time i read about it)

Note that the reason it is not a McGuffin is because Benedict is not remotely interested in it. A McGuffin should be something desired by all the major players in a plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpcohen1968 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Eating

The trivia states that Brad Pitt is eating because he's so busy. I don't believe thats the reason.

If you think back the beginning of the movie, he's eating something outside the club he's at where Danny eventually meets him. Was he busy then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.173.112 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 April 2007

-Yes. He's a busy guy by nature. Who else could come up with 90% of the plan on the spot, just minutes after being asked about how to pull off the heist? "A Boesky... a Jim Brown..." A guy with skills like that habitually keeps busy (who wouldn't?)--117.254.9.95 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The trivia you mention is not on the page anymore, but it happens to have some factual basis; on the DVD audio commentary, Brad Pitt explains that it was his idea for his character to always be eating because he figured that he would always be too busy to sit down and enjoy a meal. Minaker 15:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With regards to him eating, there is a continuity error in the film where they first discuss the contents of the black portfolio. Pitt is eating shrimp cocktail out of a large glass while standing and talking to Damon. There is a cut to a tighter shot of them following in which Pitt is now eating the shrimp from a plate instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.186.191 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

-Maybe he ordered another helping, a plate this time. Just because it isn't shown (perhaps implied?) doesn't mean it's not without merit and thus viewed as a mistake or goof. Think about it.--117.254.9.95 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot question

Isn't the summary - here and elsewhere wrong? Benedict finds out that the robbery he saw shown on the monitor screens was not happening - in other words, it was staged on the replica set they built. So, is the acrobat actually in the real vault? Are Clooney and Damon? Was the fake video live or a recording? I don't follow that bit of the movie at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.77.31 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 May 2007

--Answer to plot question The acrobat (Yen), Danny Ocean (Clooney), and Linus (Damon) were all in the real vault. When Danny and Linus enter the vault to meet Yen, they arrive without any black bags to load the money. Similarly, they do not arrive with the call girl advertisements either.

The point of the recording that Benedict was watching is that, Benedict was watching a recording that Oceans 11 made in their warehouse. They made a complete replica of the vault in their warehouse, and the video they film is of burglars, all masked, loading the money in to black duffel bags. As Benedict is watching this video (that was a recording), Yen, Danny, and Linus are in the vault (unmasked) stacking all the money in to the center of the vault and are waiting for the "SWAT" team to show up and make the exchange. It's after they cut the power at some point and the SWAT team moves in that they switch the video so that it's no longer showing a recording, but is showing real time. Hope that helps Asmitty97 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to properly edit, but the opening sentence in the summary contains an error. The sign at the jail says North Jersey State Prison, which doesn't really exist. The exteriors look like it was filmed at East Jersey State Prison which has appeared in other films before, but the sign was changed for the movie. 208.68.21.27 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)TK

 Done I removed the prison name as it's not really pertinent to the plot in any case. The location info might be useful in the Production section, if there's sourcing regarding it. Doniago (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Saul

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Saul a German businessman, not a Russian one like the article claims? I've never heard of a Russian with the name Zerga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.113.22 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 July 2007

I think its not specified in the movie. But Zerga is definitely not a German name. As it was said on the bonus material of the DVD the language in which Saul speaks during the transfer of the briefcase was made up. His assistans are called "Michail" and "Vladimir" - typically Russian names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.94.191.63 (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Ep IV Homage

This was pretty obvious to me the first time I saw the film, but I've never read anything on the net about it -- isn't the scene where the Eleven are being shown the plan to break into the vault on a large flatscreen TV an homage to the scene in Star Wars when the pilots are being briefed on how their going to destroy the Death Star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.77.152 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 November 2007

Mikhail and Vladimir as "Real Life Models"

We have the following in the section "Real Life Models":

In the scene where Saul (Carl Reiner) is walking to the security room with Benedict (Andy Garcia) and is recognized by an old friend, he addresses Virgil (Casey Affleck) and Turk (Scott Caan) as "Mikhail" and "Vladimir" respectively. This is a Reference to Mikhail Kalinin and Vladimir Lenin, both of whom were revolutionaries during the Russian Revolution.

Maybe I'm being picky, but I don't see how that's a "real life model". That's a reference to two existing people, but has nothing to do with them other than the name, while the other points in "real life models" talk about people and events the movie has used as inspiration: the highly-technical robbery of a bank by a team of eleven as a model for the robbery in the film, and real life's developer of the target casinos as inspiration for Andy Garcia's character. While these actually work as models, I don't see how this applies to Mikhail and Vladimir. I would put them in another section: "references" (or something like that).

Opinions?

PoisonedQuill (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that before. I removed it as unsourced, but also it looks to just be some random observation. They are two very common Russian names. Good catch Gwynand (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Goofs: Volume of bills

There are calculations that show $160 million would take up at least 2 cubic meters and weigh 1600kg. Hard to transport, but not too difficult to fit into 8 duffel bags, depending on the size. I'd Be Bold but I'm not sure what a proper reference for the capacity of a duffel bag is. I did find military duffels that are about 1/3 cubic meters capacity, so fitting that many bills into 8 of them would be no problem. In any case, the bags would then weigh 200kg (400lb) each, so they might have trouble lifting them, but that's a different goof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbowman (talk • contribs) 08:00, 10 August 2008

A few of my friends and I came to the same conclusion, first by assuming you could stack bills with the same density as a university textbook, then determining how many bills/textbook (by pages and page size) then how many textbooks per bag. And we got roughly the same numbers; 200kg bags - which is actually 454lbs, not 400. And we were working under the assumption that the bills were not mixed, and were only in $100 sets. A casino would be expected to have mixed bills. Unfortunately none of this is reference-able. Annihilatron (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Goofs: EMP

Currently the article says that an EMP would permanently destroy all electronics unless they were protected by lead. My understanding is that lead is protection against nuclear radiation and would offer no protection against electromagnetic radiation. I'm not an expert at this, but I would believe that only a Faraday's cage would protect electronics against an EMP attack. Tobtoh (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Benedict and Wynn

Part of the article seemed to claim that Benedict was based on the real-life casino owner Wynn. And since I'm pretty sure the character of Benedict is morally reprehensible, I had to delete the comparison part. Wikipedia demands this kind of stuff; you can't even come close to comparing real life people to fictional scumbags. Policy is to err on the side of caution in deleting. Lots42 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Ryan (2nd nomination)

Bradd Pitt character in the film. Ikip (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• Entertainment Weekly
• Roger Ebert
• The New York Times
• USA Today
• The Village Voice
• '"San Francisco Chronicle
• Time

To use with this article.--J.D. (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bill Murray

Is it really that noticeable that at one point Bill Murray was RUMORED to play a part? IchiGhost (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to my mind. Removed. Doniago (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Recruitment order

Isn't Frank recruited before Rusty as I've put? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpcohen1968 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cons described???

Thank goodness for a revision history so you can actually learn stuff. Whoever removed this section is a jerk because at least explained what the various names mean and the cons they are linked to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.1.250 (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you revert the edit? I think that is relevant info and should be on this page. Not to mention it is interesting and I would like to know what they were.Millertime246 (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, can you source it so it isn't original research and is actually appropriate for inclusion? Doniago (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Were the bodyguards in on it too?

In the scene when Bruiser first comes in, he hits Danny, and Danny says loudly "Bruiser! Not until later!", and then they have a regular conversation as Danny goes up the ventilation shaft. Later, when Bruiser is pretending to rough up Danny, they cut to the bodyguards outside and we hear Bruiser clearly. Were the bodyguards dumb? Were they in on it too? Did they tell Benedict about what happened off-screen, which led to them tailing Danny and Rusty at the end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.133.233.124 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. While I can understand the opposition's points about 11 and Eleven being one and the same in people's minds, I feel it has been demonstrated that the new arrangement would not be disadvantaging too many people and is line with WP:2DAB and WP:PRECISION. -- tariqabjotu 01:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

---

• Ocean's Eleven (2001 film) → Ocean's Eleven
• Ocean's 11 (1960 film) → Ocean's 11

– Disambiguating the films by year isn't necessary since in the older film 11 is written as a number but here it's spelled out. A hatnote could be added to each page to help readers avoid confusion. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC). Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. No reason to parenthetically disambiguate titles that are naturally disambiguated already. --B2C 17:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail," per WP:PRECISION. The {{Distinguish}} template exists specifically for this purpose. Kauffner (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose because these moves lead to a more ambiguous setup. Even if the films are technically named differently, "Eleven" and "11" are going to be interchangeable in people's minds. To demonstrate this interchangeability, Google Books shows results for "ocean's 11" 2001 and "ocean's eleven" 1960. It's not helpful to make these article titles more vague. EDIT: In addition, Ocean's Eleven is appropriately set up as a disambiguation page because we cannot assume that when readers search for "Ocean's Eleven", they want the 2001 film, or if they search for "Ocean's 11", they want the 1960 film. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  Addendum: I find WP:PRECISION misapplied here. It says, "Titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." If one asks another person (verbally or in print) when Ocean's 11 (or Ocean's Eleven) was released, there is going to be uncertainty about what film is being referred to. Do others really believe that readers in general remember the corresponding word or number? WP:PRECISION says, "Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization," but nothing about the interchangeability we have here. There's also another point to make here since most readers find film articles from outside Wikipedia anyway. Both films currently show up in Google results with each film's release year clearly indicated. With this move, these titles go away, and it makes it harder for readers to immediately identify the film they've looking for. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  I won't bludgeon this discussion, but wouldn't a hatnote help avoid any confusion? Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  Don't worry about bludgeoning. :) I've seen real bludgeoning recently. Hatnotes would ultimately clear up confusion, but I don't think we have to change the current setup. Believe me, I am fine with a difference like Panic Room vs. panic room, but I think the so-called difference here is highly dependent on the reader knowing exactly how either film was copyrighted. I suppose I am applying WP:ASTONISH where a reader searching within Wikipedia for "Ocean's 11" or "Ocean's Eleven" would arrive at a disambiguation page that would show two possible destinations. This would be in contrast with readers arriving at the film article other than the one they expect and being confused because they know the other film was also called the same thing. And in off-Wikipedia search results, the entries' titles will no longer show "(XXXX film)", also requiring close examination to click on the link they want. There's also the aspect of Wikipedia's search suggestions; when typing just "Ocean's" in the Wikipedia search box, a reader can see all the related topics and see both films with their respective disambiguation terms and click on the one they want. With the disambiguation terms removed, they have to guess which one, get confused, and then figure it out with the hatnote. Obviously, it's not the end of the world with the proposed setup, but I think it's an unnecessary change. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. A hatnote (and maybe a disambiguation page) are sufficient to distinguish these two films. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per PRECISION and add hatnotes as needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISION, WP:NATURAL and WP:2DAB. As there are only two possibilities, hatnotes will suffice. Same number of mouseclicks. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are admittedly only a minority of GBooks spelling the 1961 film as "Eleven", but Erik's concern is still clear, and apart from playing hide-and-seek in the top right hand search box what does such a move achieve for film fans? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - 11 or Eleven doesn't make a difference to me. The matter is accuracy and precision, and abandoning parenthetical disambiguation would make these titles more ambiguous. --George Ho (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Erik mainly - he summarises it well. Yes, a hatnote would help, but why introduce the need, potential additional searchbox/results confusion, and possible additional step for the reader? I've seen both movies but would have had no idea that one was "11" and the other "eleven", and I bet I'm in the majority there. The titles are clear now, and would be less clear with this move. If it ain't broke... Begoon ^talk 13:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Does any policy or guideline support your position, or are you invoking WP:IAR for the "good reason" of, "if it ain't broke..."? --B2C 22:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, at least WP:PRECISION, because it would become ambiguous, and it isn't now. I think Erik's point about WP:ASTONISH is good too. But the suggestion you give in your question is a fine reason as well. Begoon ^talk 01:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support as per WP:TWODABS. Give the reader a 50-50 shot at getting the article they want right away (a disambiguation page can't do that) and an easy path to getting the other one if they want it. Red Slash 08:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  Red Slash, how does WP:TWODABS apply? It says, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." It then mentions if there are two or three other topics in addition to the primary topic, we could still use the hatnote to a point. It does not seem like this has been a primary-topic discussion. Per the same guideline, "As discussed above, if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name." Erik (talk | contribs) 12:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

More the spirit than the letter of that page; sorry for my lack of clarity. The spirit is, don't force everyone to go to a disamb page when at a bare minimum you could make 50% of the people happy by sending them directly there while simultaneously not inconveniencing anyone but a tiny minority, since those looking for the only other main topic will be directed there by a hatnote. That's my side. The other side says that the names are still confusing and readers might be WP:ASTONISHed by the way we split this; it's a fair argument to raise. Red Slash 15:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Rob Sinden and Red Slash. Won't someone think of the readers? --BDD (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  Is the snark really necessary? We are all doing that here. We just disagree about how to go about it. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see it as snark, more a think of the children type appeal. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Erik (the titles are ambiguous—11 is eleven—and note his comment about how readers usually reach articles) and User:BDD (think of the readers who will have to wade through 1-2 hatnote or intro sentences to find they are at the wrong article). —  AjaxSmack  04:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if they have images disabled. More likely the film poster will be one of the first things to catch their eyes, with a hatnote right there to get them to the right article. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"If they have images disabled" or if using a screen reader (which may also read "11" and "eleven" the same; see WP:ACCESS for such concerns). Either way, with little benefit to be derived from a move, downsides such as this are enough to render it counterproductive. —  AjaxSmack  02:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

John Cusack

Did he make a cameo (specifically in a flashback as a casino robber who was shot trying to escape from the Caesar's Palace)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.102 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks so much like him, but I can'd find confirmation anywhere. In fact your post is one of the only things I could find. 23.233.20.102 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinch Term

The device that Basher uses to trip the electrical grid for Las Vegas although called a "pinch" is actually a Z-Pinch. The actual process by which the electrical pulse is created is a pinching process

While I appreciate what you were going for here, I think the result was overly-technical for a film plot summary and have reverted it. If other editors support your changes, we can reinstate them. DonIago (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not over simplification. We don't make up lies and post them on Wikipedia just to make a plot or simplify for some uneducated "bumpkin". This isn't the National Inquirer, if you want to post lies post there

Thank you for ignoring my request to get a consensus for your change; consequently, I have reverted again per WP:BRD. Do you have a reliable source to substantiate your own claims? DonIago (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

                                                  Cited Research Sources for You      

P. Zhang, B. Hoff, Y. Y. Lau, D. M. French, and J. W. Luginsland, "Excitation of a Slow Wave Structure", Phys. Plasmas 19, 123104 (2012).

P. Zhang, Y.Y. Lau, and R. S. Timsit, "On the Spreading Resistance of Thin-Film Contacts, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 1936 - 1940, July 2012.

D. Chernin, I. Rittersdorf, Y. Y. Lau, T. M. Antonsen, and B. Levush, "Effects of Multiple Internal Reflections on the Small-Signal Gain and Phase of a TWT," IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 1542 - 1550, May 2012.

K. Jensen, J. Lebowitz, Y.Y. Lau, and J. Luginsland, "Space Charge and Quantum Effects on Electron Emission", J. Appl. Phys, 111, 054917 (2012).

John L. Giuliani, Farhat N. Beg, Ronald M. Gilgenbach, Victor L. Kantsyrev, Bruce Kusse, Vladimir V. Ivanov, and Radu Presura, "Plasma Pinch Research on University Pulsed Power Generators in the United States", IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., V40, p3246 (2012).

D. H. Simon, Y. Y. Lau, J. W. Luginsland, and R. M. Gilgenbach, "An unnoticed property of the cylindrical relativistic Brillouin flow," Phys. Plasmas 19, 043103 (2012).

J. C. Zier, R. M. Gilgenbach, D. A. Chalenski, Y. Y. Lau, D. M. French, M. R. Gomez, S. G. Patel, I. M. Rittersdorf, A. M. Steiner, M. Weis, P. Zhang, M. Mazarakis, M. E. Cuneo, and M. Lopez, "Magneto-Rayleigh-Taylor experiments on a MegaAmpere linear transformer driver", Phys. Plasmas 19, 032701 (2012).

Peng Zhang, Y. Y. Lau, I. M. Rittersdorf, M. R. Weis, R. M. Gilgenbach, D. Chalenski, and S. A. Slutz, "Effects of Magnetic Shear on Magneto-Rayleigh-Taylor Instability", Phys. Plasmas 19, 022703 (2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.88.186 (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipedia Admin for finally stepping in and resolving the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.88.186 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realize they resolved it by removing the term altogether, right? I would have been happy to do that. DonIago (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Amazing...I actually did that to begin with and you put it back in and told me to wait for a consensus. If you're unsure of a terms meaning next time don't add it to the article just to make as you stated "make the flow" look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.88.186 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I never said anything like that, nor am I the one who added pinch to the article to begin with, and that's not at all what you did:

What you did: [1]

What was ultimately done: [2]

Clearly not the same change. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop lying now, especially as the issue has been settled in a way that apparently satisfies everyone. Please stop accusing me of taking actions I did not take and saying things I did not say. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources for use

• Christian Moerk (January 9, 2000). "Clooney's first of '11'". Variety.
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/01/31/steven_soderberg_oceans_eleven_2002_interview.shtml
• http://www.stevensoderbergh.net/articles/2000/amazon.php

http://www.stevensoderbergh.net/articles/2000/aicn.php

Numbering Ocean's Eleven crew

I recently changed the Ocean's Eleven Cast subsection to a numbered list, inspired by the article for the 1960 film. I think it's beneficial to have it as a numbered list, since it makes it easy to see that the in-universe Ocean's Eleven crew actually consists of eleven people. However, my change was reverted, and I wanted to hear what people think before possibly implementing it again. Any thoughts on this? --Kimsey0 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, now that I've had a look, both of the articles for the other films in the trilogy do the same thing. --Kimsey0 (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, WP:OTHERSTUFF; it's entirely possible they shouldn't be numbered there either.

I don't recall any point in any of the films where the characters are specifically numbered, and even if they were, there isn't any particular significance to the numbering that I'm aware of (perhaps recruitment order, but that seems more like fancruft than anything relevant to the film). It could be argued that to "assign" them numbers is original research. DonIago (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there's no significance to the ordering they have right now. But given that there's nothing in the article text about them being ordered, do you think a reader would feel that a numbered list implies that the ordering has a significance? Also, can we agree to an unordered list while we discuss? --Kimsey0 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the numbering borders on original research to imply there was a specific order. Keep it unbulletted. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As no other film articles that I'm aware of number cast lists, I think it would be reasonable for a reader to assume, especially given the name of the film, that in this case the numbering has some degree of significance. Since that doesn't appear to be the case, and since at least two of us have OR concerns, I think the best way forward is to keep the list unordered unless a reliable source is found which discusses numbering in some manner. I'd prefer not to make any changes myself given my prior involvement. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it isn't going to be numbered, I still think it would look better as an unordered list like the two other cast subsections. Masem, you don't agree? Doniago, what do you think? --Kimsey0 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A very quick look at other film articles leads me to suggest bulleted, not numbered. DonIago (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made it an unordered (bulleted) list. --Kimsey0 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Production section seems weak

I feel the production section is a bit heavy on the amount of speculation as to actors who considered participating in the film but in the end chose not to. There's actually very little there about any other aspect of production, it's mostly just filled with gossip about casting "coulda-been's". Perhaps someone with an interest in this film will be inspired to improve this in the future Jozsefs (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)