Jump to content

Talk:The Blair Witch Project/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Reason why article was delisted as GA

from Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13

The Blair Witch Project

result:Delist 3-1

Despite having adequate references, this article should be temporarily removed from the list. The "popular culture" section might need to go or be merged, and there is one {{fact}} tag near the end of the article. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist I wouldn't delist an article because it has a lone fact tag but this article has a pop culture section which reads like a trivia section. Tarret 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to delist. Diez2 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)==

What Needs to Be Done

  • No Original Research - the article is lousy with people's general musing and recollections, and none of it can be used. There are currentlly more Citation Needed tags than paragraphs in the article. It cannot remain that way. Every single statement outside of the Lead needs outside references - Verifiable, reliably sourced and properly WP:ATT|attributed references. It was this specific issue that de-listed the article.
  • Soundtrack - someone convince me that Josh's Blair Witch Mix's specific tracks are notable and related to the article (playing in the background is not notable)
  • Again, references, references, references - if you don't have a hard source for where you go it, don't add it. I will probably go through the article again on Sunday with a butcher's knife and remove anything with a cn tag on it. I will try to source some of the statements. but those statements that aren't will be going bye-bye.

Sorry for all the harsh, but the article is in piss-poor shape. Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you are over-zealous in your editing attempts and are bordering on vandalism. Many of your citation needed additions are either not have no rational behind them (asking to cite a source about a sci-fi program that actually comes with the DVD of this movie?!?) or are blandly there to make some point. I usually assume good intentions but I am having a VERY hard time in this case as you went beyond any reasonable measure when adding the citations needed tags. I suggest you refrain from further editing at wikipedia and learn/comprehend the rules. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 07:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Brian, if you think any of the info I tagged as uncited is actually cited, please point it out here. If you are going to cite a DVD extra or whatever, then cite the DVD. And the Assumption of Good Faith kinda means that if you need to learn more about Wikipeida policies like Attribution, I can the nice guy and point out where to find that particular wikilink.
You might also want to take a look at the reason the article was delisted. A lack of sources was the primary reason. There are more sources to be found than a DVD of the film. Jeez, Rotten Tomatoes has dozens of them. An article that does not cite its sources becomes ripe for deletion as it violates the 5 Pillars. I would prefer the article improve rather than get deleted. It's a stunning accomplishment of cinema verité and effective viral marketing. However, unless I find a citation (several would be better) that says that, i cannot include any of it.
Lastly, revisit WP:NPA, as your thinly-veiled insult that I don't know my way around WP is a pretty good example of that. I'm perhaps not as well-versed as you when it comes to article deletion conversations, but I've worked my fair share of articles. Play nice. Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The way the article currently stands, no "citation needed" tags exist on the page, so Arcayne, I have nothing against you, nor do I want to take any part in this argument. But if what you said is really what you mean, then I agree with Brian about tagging every single uncited statement with "citation needed". Brian is right; this makes the text hard to read. Vandalism, I'm not so sure. Plus, we need to think about the basic purpose of Wikipedia: to spread knowledge. Let's try not to be so picky about the small details. Hyuugamoto 18:24 p.m. November 14, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, when you present politely, its just a difference of opinion. When people come in saying you dirty so-and-so, it yanks my chain, and I release the hounds upon the poor soul who was uncivil - lol. Just kidding. Mostly.
I understand what you mean about how the citation tags are a bit distracting. the reason we use single tags (instead of section tags) is to pinpoint those statements that need citation (or risk being removed - no uncited info can be in Wikipedia). If you can find information that verifies reliably (remember, no blogs or fan forums) anything with citationneeded tag, add it and remove the tag. otherwise, the tags have to stay there, so as to identify those parts going uncited for a while (I usually wait a month or two, unless its a biography, in which case it gets removed immediately - ask me why if you want to know).
I completely agree thatthe purpose of Wikipedia is to spread knowedge. But that knowledge has to be neutral, verfiable and reliable (summed up by the Five Pillars of Wikipedia). we are not in a rush to get the first information; we are instead making sure that we have the best and most reliable information. I hope that explains matters better. Thanks for taking the time to post, Hyu. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

People,the purpose here is to provide information. All internet info is somewhat suspect to the prudent person, but to some poor sole trying to research a subject even unworthy seeming info can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.228.218 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links?

Where are any of the links to movies sites, such as IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.107.192 (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, IMDB, RT, et al should be included. External links to the likes such as haxan films, the director's sites, actor's sites, rustin parr and elly kedward are also very much appropriate, please do not delete them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.236.203.2 (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Some were deleted because they weren't necessary to this article. links to the director's or actors' pages are best found on their article pages. If they don't have article pages, then shame on you for not creating them. As for the IMDB and Haxan links, i think those need to stay. Rustin Parr and Elly Kedward? Again, best confined to their articles, as they appear to be over-the-top fan links. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand Arcayne. However, they were not over-the-top fan links, they are legit links and have been a part of the WIKI externals for some time until these recent deletions. I'm the one who made the site for Artisan (blairwitch.com) as well as all the other viral campaigns associated with it, including Woods Movie (what we originally called Blair), Rustin Parr and Elly Kedward, hence why my personal interest they remain. It's also very appropriate to have our company (Haxan Films) who MADE the film as well as links to our actors' sites included.
I think it's brilliant you're on top of everything here and see how much crap you've snuffed out (and there's quite a bit from what I've seen), but again - those are not fan links but are all official sites associated with Blair (especially Parr and Kedward). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.115.225.54 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank for the compliment, but I certainly didn't do it by myself.
Secondly, I think that we cannot have that many external links (as per WP:NOT); something you might want to consider is if some of these links are nesting (ie, a link within a link), we need only add the parent link. As for the links to the actors, the links to their personal websites are better placed in their articles. Remember, the article here is The Blair Witch Project, so links fhould deal precisely and specifically with the film. I hope that explains my position better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
something I should point out is that when something is reverted, it's usually better to wait until discussion concludes to undo the revert. Looking at yours, I think its important to ensure that none of the links nest within one another, as we can eliminate the nesting ones (since the reader can find one through the other). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point Arcayne. And you know WIKI protocol better than anyone I know so I respect your judgement. That said, I left out the links to Josh, Mike and us personally. In regards to nesting, how does that work? - Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.115.225.54 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have done this yet, and it needs be done. I will take care of it soon if someone else does not. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just re-read Arcaine's explanation (in talk) and understand the nested link issue. That said, it would in fact be appropriate to include the previous links to the Elly Kedward and Rustin Parr sites. They were made originally as viral campaigns for Blair and were intentionally not linked from the our official site. The sites should have been looked at before deletion. I'm not re-adding them to avoid any further debate on this, but did want to clarify our stand on this. - Dan

First Revealed As Hoax

Does anybody know when this movie was first officially announced as a hoax? Ailes Grises 05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was always a hoax, Ailes (and yeah, I got the Charcoal Feather allusion - nice). The film was just a film, but it was so small, they were concerned about generating interest in an Indy (nickname for independent film), and thus began a viral marketing campaign. It was really the first of its kind as applied to film and was so successful that people still think it was a real event, or that the film was actually a documentary of a hoax. When I first saw it at a screener, I thought it was real, and it scared the piss out of me (I do a lot of camping and wilderness stuff, so I could identify with the idea of creepy locals messing with me).


There are a lot of pretty good sources for it, if you are interesting in looking for them. :) Hope that answers yoiur question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC). also,listen carefully and you will heather say did you get thatafter the infamous apolegy secne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.155.1 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. At then end of the credits of the movie one scree comes up with like 2 paragraphs on it and one say something to the effect of "All events in this movie are entirely fictional... On the DVD verison anyway. Trigahapykila (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

Hey I noticed that the spoiler warning here is in the synopsis section. After looking at Wikipedia: Spoiler_warning I'm going to remove it from that section. If you have any objections reply below or let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Jussen 20:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(Already posted to the User's Talk page about discussing matters regarding the article here) Actually, after having read the Guidelines on spoilers, I am noit sure where you justify advocation the removal of the items. Generally, plots are given with spoiler warnings, so as to not affect the enjoyment of the reader (and potential viewer). As evidenced from a section above, there are still people who were unaware of the film, and its media manipulations. I will be reinstating the Spoiler tags until we have come to a meeting of the minds, so to speak. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, I've gone ahead and suggested a revision of the film guidelines that no longer includes spoiler warnings. I'd like your input on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#plot. Jussen 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will check it out. I think that you might want to hold off on removing spoiler warning rom other articles until another policy/guideline is put in place, as it can antagonize some editors to no end. You've been very cool about this (and trust me, I've seen some rather unpleasant folk doing it specifically to force the issue, which is both dickish and disruptive, simply to make a point), so don't think the politeness is not appreciated, Jussen. Other users here should feel free to chack out the link in question as well and weigh in with their own thoughts. Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Also take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning#Callibrating_the_teeth_of_this_guideline. In making the new general spoiler guideline, editors want to know some arguments from the pro-spoiler crowd. Jussen 23:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a misleading argument there. Most people won't bother to complain, considering that they would be derided for whining about it. Doesn't mean the disappointment isn't there. it would be akin to me assuming you are a mutated squirrel with typing skills based upon never seeing proof that you were otherwise. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is not a good candidate for a spoiler warning, in any case. The synopsis (which IIRC I edited quite substantially a while back) is rather vague, because the film also is (it's not entirely explicit in the movie what happens). I really doubt that anyone's enjoyment of BWP would be damaged by reading the synopsis here - it's not as if the article gives away some extraordinary twist. Barnabypage 00:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That the article is something of a train wreck is a given. It doesn't mean that the principle of using spoiler tags to protect the plot when it is finally written better. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Blair Witch Project grossed 248M worldwide with a budget of 60K... My Big Fat Greek Wedding grossed 370M with but had a budget of 5M. Doesnt take a math genius to see that BWP made more when compared to how much it cost to make. Or am I wrong?

No, it doesn't take a genius to see that. It does, however, require a reliable citation from a secondary source as to that accomplishment. See WP:CITE or WP:ATT for a heads-up on what I am talking about. We cannot include it without an external reference from a verifiable, reliable source. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion may or may not count, but if you ask me, spoiler warnings should be used for ANYTHING that spoils the plots of popular media. If Wikipedia doesn't give a hoot about spoiling the plots of movies for people who are just innocently researching, and not peeking at what happens, then fine, they can go ahead and wreck the readers' experiences. READERS DON'T DESERVE TO STUMBLE UPON AND READ UNWANTED INFORMATION! Warn them! I don't support this Wikipedia policy. Hyuugamoto 17:57 p.m. November 14, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Spoiler warnings? If someone wanted to avoid knowing the plot of a movie why would they be researching it? More disappointment will occur when the information is ommited. Why are you talking about mutated squirrels?

To begin with, Hyu, your opinion, politely given, always counts. That is how things get done - an ecyclopedia anyone can edit, and all that. So, if you have a question or a comment, pipe up. Unless you get uncivil or threaten slap someone's little sister, you'll always find someone to listen.
About Spoiler warnings, yes, I used to believe exactly like you used to (I am not kidding, and i am not trying to sound like the wise old Wikipedian here). But then, someone pointed out that people who come to read an article in an ancyclopedia about a book, its a safe bet that the ending is going tobe given away. The same thing goes for editors. If you don't want to know that the Blair Witch is actually the goth girl (just kidding), don't edit in the article. Edit where you already know the score. Wikipedia is not censored, just like a normal encyclopedia.
As well, you will notice that the only places you usually see spoiler warnings are in fan forums and blogs. WP is neither of those things; you cannot cite from them, and you shouldn't try to treat WP like one (it riles up the regulars, like me).
In short, Wikipedia is an experiment in self-control. If you don't want to know about something, don't look up the entry for it, and sure as heck if you accidentally stumble across the page, don't read the plot. That's just common sense. myself, i don't edit natalie Portman's page; i don;t want to know if she gets married, as I keep hoping she will one day discover me. ;) lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

cite needed tags

The large number of cite needed tags really breaks up the text. Isn't there one that could go at the top saying 'this article doesn't cite...' and leave it at that? 80.41.20.115 11:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We could do that, but that would be avoiding the problem, sort of like putting a sign on a road warning of large potholes, rather than actually fixing the potholes. I have an even better solution. I will be removing the uncited material from the article to here until it is cited. When someone finds a citation, we can put it in at that time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Citation Needed tag was done because I had assumed that the citation needed was in reference to the parenthetical text "all fabricated, of course". If there was proof that the interviews did, in fact, exist, would there be need for proof that the interviews were fabricated? Zchris87v 05:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the reasoning being htat we don't get to make any statements of fact or supposition whatsoever. If the interviews took place, we need citations for that. If they were fabricated, we need cites for that, too. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncited info removed from article

As mentioned above, I mentioned about a month ago how data needed to be cited to remain inthe article. There is still an jumbo amount of data that shouldn't be in the article, as it is entirely uncited. When we find verifiable, reliably-sourced references for the material, it can return. Not until then, though.
Lead:
  • ..."making it the most successful independent film ever made up to that point (this record was broken in October 2002 with Nia Vardalos' My Big Fat Greek Wedding) and the most profitable film of all time in terms of the ratio of production cost to box office sales.[citation needed]"
Release and Reaction:
Cinematic and literary allusions:
Soundtrack:
  • "None of the songs featured on Josh's Blair Witch Mix actually appear in the movie. This collection of mostly goth rock and industrial tracks is supposedly from a mix tape made by ill-fated film student Joshua Leonard. The tape was found in Josh's car after his disappearance. Some of the songs featured on the soundtrack (besides the last track, which is the 'song' featuring the famous creepy, industrial-sounding noise heard in the trailers and during the credits) were released after 1994, supposedly after the events of the movie have taken place."
Curse of the Blair Witch:
  • "Curse of the Blair Witch is a mockumentary produced for the Sci-Fi channel in 1999. Much of the footage was originally intended to make up the first third of the film of The Blair Witch Project; it was cut from the film prior to release, and reworked and expanded upon. The program is a believable attempt to help make the film The Blair Witch Project look like real footage taken by three student film makers that went missing. The mockumentary itself could be seen as a success, as many people did believe that the film was taken from real footage, which made the film a huge success despite its low budget.[citation needed]"
  • "The Curse of the Blair Witch uses everything real documentaries do to create the illusion that events actually happened[citation needed]. There are interviews with the townspeople, scientists and the students' teachers, that help bring the characters from abstract creations to real people that family and friends dearly miss, and also fake news clips regarding the search effort for the filmmakers.[citation needed]"
Sequel:

Just an update: the info listed in the section above is currently unsourced. If you have a reliable source for it, great. Add it into the statement in question and add it back intot he article approrpriately. If you don't have a citation but think it would look really purty in the article, do NOT add it. Without citation, it will be removed as uncited. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fully familiar with the citation policy of the English wikipedia; it seems to be much more strict than, for example, in the German one. And I have to admit that I can't always claim to understand why a citation is needed for all of the above statements. However, I'm really not going to start an argument about that. Just a question for clarification: why is the link to the sequel included in above section of unsourced material? Would you go so far as to demand a source for that as well? 78.49.190.120 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't unsourced, per se, it is more a case of a wikilink without any explanation whatsoever. I guess it could be an external link, but it was just sitting there, like a bump on a log. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is IMDB allowed as a citation? Book of Shadows definitely exists. If not, then heck - I'll pull a review by Ebert or something. The film happened, and is a sequel. -Dndnerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dndnerd (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the above, "citation needed" was added to many things for which a citation is not needed AFAIK. E.g. "Since its release, it was rated #30 on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments[citation needed]. It was later placed at #5 on the Channel 4 poll The 100 Greatest Scary Moments[citation needed]" Those things are purely observational, you don't need secondary sources to confirm they're in those lists. Шизомби (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

section "Box office history"

Hi, I was wondering if there should be a topic in the Blair Witch article regarding its production budget against the amount of money it made at the box office since it was made on a very small budget and made profit on top of profit. I maybe wrong, but it is one of the most profitable independent film which should have some info regarding this fact, right? what do you all think? - RVDDP2501 01:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this is definitely worth mentioning - it's very noteworthy (o ne of the criteria for inclusion). What's key is to not say state in the article that " it is one of the most profitable independent film" without citing that statement, tying it to an independent observation from a reliable source (like a reviewer or news story of such). Citing production costs and gross and net earnings would be perfect. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Currently the article says "The film is arguably the most profitable film in history.". I think it would be more accurate to say "The Blair Witch Project may have the highest profit margin of any film in history." since Titanic, for example made something like $1 billion in straight profit to this film's $300 million, but had a much smaller profit margin.

I think that re-wording is probably good to avoid misinterpretations. In the future, could you please sign your posts, so we know who wrote them? I tend to simply remove unsigned posts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

When to site

This does not require a citation. This is not an opinion, quotation, or a non-neutral POV. It is a fact. The link to Cannibal Holocaust itself acts as a citation, which directly talks about the plot events, which ARE similiar to the The Blair Witch Project. Please be more familiar with the nuances of the citing policy, before removing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprayx (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to do you the small kindness of forgiving you for being a jerk and walk you through how citations work here. blair Witch is a film. So is Cannibal Holocaust. They are not the same film, they are not a prequel or sequel to the other, and there were no cast or crew connections to any of them. What you are pointing to as connections are your observations that the movies are similar - you have said this yourself, in the post immediately prior to this. The way Wikipedia works, we are only allowed to use secondary sources - sources from published material, such as movie reviews, academic studies and the like. These are reliable and verifiable. Primary sources are first hand accounts, such as your or my comparisons between Blair Witch and Deliverance or I Spit on Your Grave. An example of this would be your witnessing of an auto-accident. Your view of the accident is important, but the view that collates all the witness statements into a single view secondarily is more reliable than a single view. Your individual views on how Blair Witch is similar to Cannibal Holocaust do not matter in Wikipedia. If you happen to find a review or an article noting a similarity between the two that meets the inclusion criteria for inclusion (not that Imdb and fan forums are not considered reliable by WP), then that view can be included. Not until then.
If you are still unconvinced about my understanding of the "nuances" of the policies, please feel free to consult an admin to help explain it to you further; a full list of them can be found here. Perhaps when you have been at this for longer than a few weeks, you will learn that the policies are pretty straight-forward, and that when people cite them in edit summaries, it might very well be that they have a bit of experience in their application. If you would like help in understanding policies, please feel free to ask, and I mean that genuinely. I am guessing that you were as snippy as you were because you haven't gotten used to being edited yet; you eventually learn to not take it as personally. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot description

As far as the comment in the plot description:

"Mike runs downstairs to the basement, where he is apparently knocked unconscious."

I'm not so sure this is appropriate. We are kind of speculating as to what happens to Mike before Heather gets in the basement, but we really don't know. But I think it's safe to assume that he wouldn't be knocked unconcious, and then a minute later be standing up in the corner by himself. As to why he would be standing there and not moving, as if in a trance, is part of the mystery. Thoughts? Tprayx 15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Good catch. Do you want to remove it or shall I? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've already done it after reading Tprayx's point. I'm not sure when this speculation snuck in; I'm sure it hasn't always been there. Barnabypage 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
We need someone to blame, so I nominate leprechauns and the Vatican. They get blamed for everything anyway. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

BloodyGoodHorror.net Interview

I removed this link because it looked like spam. Arcayne reverted, but I had a look at the interview and it seems to be more about the director than the film, with Blair Witch only being mentioned a couple of times in passing. I don't care one way or the other, but I thought I'd bring the subject to the talk page for debate. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess something could be culled fromthe source and used inthe article, which has bupkes in the way of references. If you want to pull it and put the reference here, that would be okay, i think. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

?

So...Do they get found or not? It says that the illusion made by the posters and stuff said that they were nbever found, yet....

Yes, they were found...in a local video store. As well as the film being a horror film done in the form of a documentary, only one of the actors has gone on to do further work in film (Heather). I am sorry Virginia, there is no Blair Witch- Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


What is Noteworthy?

In order for a spoof or parody or whatever to be included in the article, it has to be notable. What this means is that there have to be many points of connection between the source material and the spoof. It cannot have just a scene or two, like the nose-drippy scene, or someone standing in the corner. It has to copy the overall feel of the original to make fun of it, as per the first sentence in parody, which is pretty much the same as spoof (the act of which is called lampooning). None of the examples thus provided rise to that level of imitation, and thusly cannot be included. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, the comparisons to House of Leaves are noteworthy. I've included two independent sources of many who have noticed similarities, and I've removed conjecture on my own part of similarities I've noticed myself. User:Dndnerd Dndnerd —Preceding comment was added at 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
They are. Very well done, Dndnerd. :) I should recommend you mosey on over to the Elric of Melnibone article, That one needs a lot of citations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Blair Witch 3

I've had a look at the blair witch 3 site, and I do not believe that it should be featured in this article - or at least not so prominantly. It is a Bravehost site, and is clearly unofficial. I think that it should perhaps be included in a fan-movie section. - [[User talk:Zestos|Zestos 13:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, shelved back in 2002.
I'm not sure if this is a reliable source, but I've found nothing against it... [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.235.179 (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we cite Yahoo movies even less that e do Imdb. Zestos caught the Bravehost site (kudos to you, btw), so the site is now gone. If the movie were worth the DVD its printed on, there will be more reliable notations of it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That never was an official site for Blair Witch 3. www.ellykedward.com has long been reserved for the official Blair Witch 3 site. - Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.236.203.2 (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And that is a pretty unimpressive site, indeed. It hasn't gotten past the Coming Soon screen. I say we nix it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nix what? You already did that when you removed it from the external links. Unimpressive is an entitled opinion of course, but anything other than "Coming Soon" at this writing is fairly hard to achieve when there's no content as of yet. Yes, that is a sarcastic remark. But in all fairness Arcaine, you're treating this as your own personal webpage and it's not up to whether you personally are impressed or not. If we DO make a Blair 3 and it's not to your liking, does that mean its inclusion to WIKI will be deleted?
Frankly, mind for the good folks (including you) who take care of the vandalism, I can't for the life of me figure out why it's still being edited after nearly 10 years. Enough already! - Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.236.203.2 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are probably going to find (if you haven't already) that being sarcastic here in Wikipedia is going to do anything other than get your head bit off by someone with poor impulse control. Second, you might want to consider how WP defines ownership before tossing out accusations like that. In short sarcasm doesn't work - unless you were seeking to get taken down a peg or two.
As I am guessing that something like that might spoil your entire day, I would suggest another tactic: perhaps talk to and reason with the other person with whom you are having a perceived difficulty. While I said that I was not impressed with an unfinished website, there was no caveat stipulating that it was the last word on the topic. Indeed, your comment proves that.
Wikipedia is not in a rush to get the information added to the article first. A lot of newer users (with less than 15 edits or so) or personal investment in the subject tent to make that mistake. We do not have to be first. We have to be well-cited. Since the website isn't finished, it is not reliable and we cannot crystal ball what is going to eventually be there. I didn't make the rules, 209; but I will follow them.
I was wondering what you meant when you said: "If we DO make a Blair 3" - are you involved with the production of the film? If so, you are in a good position to provide the article with important, third party references from the Trades, as you undoubtedly follow any news of your production. I think the question warrants an answer. Let me know. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course no one seeks to be taken down a peg or two, and I'm sorry you took offense at what I wrote, that wasn't my intention. One thing to note is that I wasn't suggesting making any information edits, I was simply clarifying that the Bravehost site was never an official site for BLAIR3 and that EK was reserved for such. Perhaps I misunderstood when you wrote "nix it," and in my re-reading it I see what you may have intended so

I may have jumped the gun on that.

However, your comment that it was unimpressive followed by "nix it" does in fact come across as an action of opinion as opposed to action of belief or fact, i.e. "i don't like it, let's nix it," hence my response. If I misunderstood your post, then perhaps you misunderstood mine as well. I was not suggesting linking anything. As well, my initial post was in response to anon's 68.55.235.179 post of "I'm not sure if this is a reliable source, but I've found nothing against it..." I should have been more clear.
I didn't realize this was a discussion about inclusion of links, again - I wasn't suggesting including it, and at this writing there is no production for a third BLAIR so there's nothing to nix in the first place (the table's still open for a third BLAIR, and hopefully the likes of SEVENTH MOON or OBJECTIVE will jump-start a confident interest on LG's part. this is why elly remains online until we know such).
As I closed the previous - there's nothing remaining to add or cite, everything looks fairly accurate, aside from the occasional ass who pollutes the article (now there's good ammo for bringing on the hammer and you're all quick to do so I see).
Yes, I have a few edits only and to be honest this is a clumsy freshman attempt on my part (and I see that IP is not all mine, it looks as though it's shared), there's no reason for me to have multiple edits. I only pop in here when someone shoots off an email that something's up. In response to your last question, yes. - Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.236.203.2 (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I misinterpreted you, then. If you are concerned with others using your shared IP address and doing you dirty, you might want to consider creating an ID and passowrd, so that even if you happen to share the IP, your personal account is all yours. If doesn't require you to pay or edit all the time. It just makes your edits yours. After a while, you get full editing privileges, like editing in semi-protected articles, the ultra secret Wikipedia cabal decoder ring and of course, the semi-annual Kick in the Crotch Fiesta. It's all great fun. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Budget

Is the budget $25,000 or $60,000? Both numbers are given in different parts of the article. It is quite a discrepancy. Antorjal (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I provided a citation for the amount of $22K. If someone can find a more reliable citation noting a different amount, i welcome them to add it. Blogs and IMDB are not considered reliable for this application. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It cost around 30 to 35k to complete phase's 1 and 2 and more-so afterwards. A large portion of this came from John Pierson for his show "Split Screen" as well as Gregg Hale, some private financing and credit cards. It cost about 140k to nail Sundance (also from private equity) and once Artisan grabbed it the total budget exceeded 300k.

Sorry, I can't cite that, but I'm fully aware of the costs. Leave it at 22k if you're more comfortable with that. - Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.115.225.54 (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfy with uncited info, so let's find one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's try this then; you put "citation needed" next to anything uncited, I will find references for it. And when that's done, I'll do the minor corrections from the GA Review and get this back to GA status. Sound good? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't gotten to it yet, I have 3 FA nominations in the last month and one currently, hope to get to it eventually. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Take your time. We aren't in a hurry. Good luck on your FA noms. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Add a complete plot/synopsis?

I have the movie on DVD, I could watch it again and write a detailed plot, is that okay with everyone? Or did we leave the synopsis simple so people could interpret it the way they want? 68.55.235.179 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. That is a good guideline to how long and detailed it should be, and it should probably not exceed that length. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, should I submit it on the talk page to see if it's good enough, or what? 68.55.235.179 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you can ick and choose a synopsis from a list of FA films, including Halloween which has an exceptionally concise plot summary. This is what you should be aiming for. We don't need an overlong or super-detailed plot. We aren't Imdb or CliffsNotes. Don't rewrite if you are planning on making the plot longer. It doesn't need that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

25 million USD used on marketing?

The initial investment by the three Central Florida filmmakers was about US$35,000. Artisan acquired the film for US$1.1 million and spent only US$25 million to market it | They used over 20 times more on marketing than on anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.54.103 (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you reliably cite that, pls? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A quick Google brings up what appears to be a well-informed article at http://www.chazaustin.com/blair.html. That puts the marketing and distribution spend at $10m. Barnabypage (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Blair_Witch_Project/Archive_2&oldid=1137228825"