Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

citation offered

sorry am new to all this but thought you might like to know that according to the rear of the special widescreen edition 1996 video box " the film has grossed well over $150 million at the box office and maintains its position as the campy favourite of the midnight movie - still playing worldwide to both new and experienced audiences" sorry if i have put this in the wrong place or anything but hope it is useful Maddie1975 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations desperately needed

I suggest no further edits to this article without proper citiations. There are several sources available including books still in print, newspaper articles spanning 30 years as well as online sources, magazines, such as Time, Newsweek and others. There is no excuse for false claims or incorrect information. I have started adding citations and removing information with no clear source to be found. --Amadscientist 18:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Section removal

Information is incorrect and has been edited so mauch it no longer carries the weight of it's original intention. The List from the 25th anniversary DVD is NOT the list from that DVD. The Sexual Slang Subject line makes no sense I will be deleting these. --Amadscientist 06:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest Clean up

Any particular things or just a general clean up. I'm thinking we should link more in formation to new pages.--Amadscientist 05:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Doubling external links is a no no

The wikipedia policy on this is clear. DO NOT DOUBLE UP EXTERNAL LINKS. There simply is no reason for an external link to the movie script at the end of the plot summery. There is a place for external links and that link is there. Please do not take offense but we have to keep this page clean and proffesional and many people are sticking back in the items that were cleaned up at wikipedias request.

External links advertising or links to pertanent information?

Serious problem with the external links section which seems to be little more than advertisements for individual projects unrelated to the Movie other than the subject. Is this what external links is about? The link to "The Rocky Horror Costume Forum" was removed several times and was deemed as non essential, yet it was merely discussing one of the biggest parts of this film. Many of the links seem to be for advertising of nonessential sites. RHPS reinacted by Bunnies? It is funny but not a rightful link! Nor is a link to any other Fan run site. Links should pertain to the movie it'self not as a way for people to promote their sites. Amadscientist

Vandal Lockout?

This article needs to be locked from any further edits temporarily from non-registered users due to a frequent removal of a link to an on-going news issue concerning RHPS showings and the legality of minors present at said showings.

Why? Because someone removed your information? It doesn't seem relevant to the overall movie. Just to you. Perhaps it was because it was in the wrong place. But really we don't need more information we need to edit what is here to be writen in a more proffesional mannaer. I have edited the first two portions of this article. But it needs to be more encylopedic. Heck you don't even sign your comment, although I forget sometimes as well. --Amadscientist 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Complete re-write?

This page has become to complicated. I think it needs a complete re-write and possibly add new related pages to add the individual catagories into linkable text. Although the article is long, it is incomplete. There is little or nothing about the production staff, the costume and art design. The cult following sections seem to be heavily edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs)

I agree that a rewrite is necessary, and would be happy to help edit any text someone else generates, but at the moment I haven't the time to write it myself. Polymathematics 04:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Impact on gay roles

it's kinda dull for the huge impact it had on movies. i've seen it listed as a breakthrough film for gay roles in the big screen and theatre. anyone knows a thing about that? lemme see what i can add

Issa 08:47 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Show or Picture Show?

hear ye, here ye, the Tarquin cometh to move this page. The question is, should it be: "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (film, best-known) or "The Rocky Horror Show" (original musical)? -- Tarquin

The Rocky Horror Picture Show, for my part. -- John Owens

I'd say the film was much bigger and is better known than the stage show. It's what I would expect most people to think of first if you say "Rocky Horror". Tualha 06:02, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

When I think of Rocky, I think The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Popefelix 02:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it depends on your location: in the U.S. and Canada, fans are much more familiar with the film. In the UK and Europe, the play is better known to fans, as it tours yearly in Britain and the continent.--Truver 03:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two different pages, one for the film (The Rocky Horror Picture Show) and one for the musical (The Rocky Horror Show). Note the difference as questioned above. --Cbrown1023 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What? Please. there is a page for the theatre production. Are you saying that we should ignore one of the most popular films made? Amadscientist

Audience participation

(In)Tolerance of difference

What were originally ad lib responses from the audience are now as tightly scripted as any screenplay, and audience members who provide "incorrect" responses are angrily shouted down just as if they were being disruptive in a normal movie

Is this really true and commonplace these days? :( I've understood that part of the enjoyment is to hear new callbacks from groupies who are, say, visiting your theatre from another side of the continent. The etiquettes I have seen caution against discriminating new groupies - after all, the show is supposed to be about having fun. Card

It really depends on the local crowd. At some places, the audience lines have ossified into an orthodxy. Part of it is cliquishness, and part of it is unfamiliarity with what other shows are doing.--RLent 23:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That was my response as I was reading that paragraph, too. But from what I gather (I've only been to the showings in one location myself), the natures of the groups varies from theatre to theatre, so perhaps this is one of the ways they differ. In my experience, they were pretty receptive to new callbacks (I contributed one I'm particularly proud of, "two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do", while Dr. Scott goes around the staircase ;), so if someone can verify that, at least in some places, incorrect responses are discouraged, we could stick the phrase "in some locales" in there, or something like that? -- John Owens 17:29 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

In the theatre in my town (Charleston, SC - Back Row Productions shadowcast), we don't shout down new lines. People just shout out any old line they feel like, and if other people like it, they laugh. Popefelix 01:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have anecdotal evidence only, but the way I heard it, this contention is exactly backwards. I was given to understand that, in the Rocky Horror Show, the audience participation segments were written in, whereas in every showing of RHPS I've attended, new lines are welcomed. Thus, in my experience and from my understanding (which may be incorrect), "what were originally tightly scripted portions of the screenplay have given way to pervasive ad-lib responses." I am, admittedly, completely unable to document my statements at this time; however, the original statement above is likewise undocumented. It would be quite educational if someone has a reference of some kind which could settle this.

I'm consulting the offical fan website right now, and it seems to say the exact opposite of what that passage says. The website makes a point of saying that the difference between a true fan and any other fan is that true fans welcome and encourage new lines, and that "shouting others down" is considered to be the prime example of what the site calls "poor Rocky etiqutte." I've never actually seen the film in theaters before, but it seems to me that shouting people down for adding new lines is the opposite of what Rocky is about: having fun. I would edit the passage, but my lack of experience with the event stays my hand. Kakashi-sensei 19:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Theatre I goes to has pretty scripted call backs, but new ones are shouted as well, such as when frankfurter falls in the pool *It's next years mardi gras!*

This is a totally WP:OR observation on my part: The first 35 times I saw RHPS was at "Cinema 151" on El Camino Real in Santa Clara, CA in 1980-1982 (not sure if it's still there or still plays RHPS), and the introduction of new shouts was encouraged, and were sometimes adopted by others. When I went to Berkeley and saw it at the now-defunct and much-missed "UC Theatre" on University Avenue, and inserted some of the more popular "off-script" shouts from the Santa Clara crew, I received icy stares from others in the audience, and a general lack of willingness to deviate from the routine - an attitude I considered odd for both Frankie-fans and Berkeleyans. After a few times, I gave up on it.

I also saw it in Israel in 1980 during a summer youth-group trip; I and a girl from Santa Rosa, CA were the only two who gave "off-script" shouts, each different from each-other's, though the rest of the kids from our group enthusiastically joined in the standard shouts. The reaction of the old native-Israeli couple sitting behind our group to the whole scene was priceless.

I've been told that, at least at one theater, when the tablecloth is pulled revealing the main course, the new chant is "His name is Robert Paulson. His name is Robert Paulson. ..." --Davecampbell 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We do the "Robert Paulson" thing at my theatre. Also, when the instant-audience disappears, someone always yells "Presenting the 2006 graduating females of the West Nickel Mines School!" Also, someone always seems to work in Steve Irwin. Snakes on a Plane comes up a lot, too. So new lines are all right with us. One time, though, I went to a showing where I was the only person yelling, and the people in front of me turned around and told me to shut up as I was ruining their enjoyment of the show. They apparently didn't like new callbacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.180.3 (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC). --OmgitsMonica 27 January 2007

History

People began shouting responses to the characters' statements on the screen (including abuse of the characters or actors, vulgar sex jokes, puns, or pop culture references).

It's a bit before my time but it's my understanding that this practice actually started with the stage play before the film was even produced. Apparently the dialogue was carefully choreographed in the film so that the gaps left (for example in a conversation) were just long enough to allow for the appropriate shoutback. Can anyone corroborate this theory? Graham  :) 21:53 Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

The responses were shouted by the audience of the play. Tempshill 04:58, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to support this? I certainly disagree. I would view Sal Piro's statements that the callback concept began in the midnight movie showings, not at the Rocky Horror Show productions (London or Broadway). Rocky 17:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, it started with the film, not the original musical. It carried on from the movie over to the current musical stage productions. The film was not choreographed with specific pauses. TR_Wolf

I've never seen the stage version, but I remember that when it was playing at the Roxy in the '70's it was promoted as having "audience participation".69.19.247.226 08:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that, having only my mom and dad as sources, here in Argentina happened the same after its release. People shouting, dancing and all. Then, my father told that in Israel, where he lived at the time, people did the same too. Of course, nowadays in Argentina, no place shows the film. I'd seen a theater reproduction, pretty cool, but that's it.

Ionathan

I just saw a special on (was it IFC or Sundance?) that covered the Midnight Movie's like Eraserhead, RHPS and Pink Flamingos. Richard O'Brien makes a remark about how people have come up to him and asked "Did you leave all those pauses in the dialouge so that we could say things back?" He said it would've been a nice idea and he wishes he was responsible, but it was not the case.--Skeev 12:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, audiance participation during the Stage production did not start untill many years after the film came out. Amadscientist

Venues

I first saw RHPS around 1995 at a theater somewhere in Bergen County, New Jersey that I'm pretty sure showed it every week at midnight. I now live in California - any idea how we can find out which theater and if it still does it? Tualha 06:02, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Nuart Theatre in Santa Monica does it every saturday.

Try here[1] if you know a specific city or ZIP Code in the area, to at least see if it's still playing in the area--not sure how to tell if it's where you saw it, unless you recognize the name or location. Niteowlneils 20:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh. According to this[2], it's only currently showing at 7 theaters in the US. One is in Jersey, but Essex County. Niteowlneils 21:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forget Fandango, and forget IMDB. They don't know where Rocky is playing. Consult The Rocky Horror Interactive Theater List[3]. Popefelix 01:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Picture show has never played in less than 150 theaters at it's lowest point in over 30 years. Where do people get this bad information?--Amadscientist 18:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Added some trivia based on the voiceover commentary by Richard O'brien and Patricia Quinn. --MJW 81.154.201.45 01:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________

C'mon, RHPS is a horrible movie. It's for people who are easily intimidated. Little real shock value. Complete and utter crap. Go watch Behind The Green Door if you want something erotic, shocking and revolutionary. The music is pretty bad too, very forgettable.

Not everyone watches movies to be shocked. I happen to think it's a great story, well-told. Tuf-Kat 02:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

It's not about the movie per se. It's about the participation. It's going to the theatre, where there will be a bunch of other freaks who love doing this as much as you do, and shouting at the screen. It's getting up on the stage in a pair of gold boxers when you've got a potbelly and man-boobs, because there's no-one else to play Rocky. It's about the pretty girls in their underwear. It's the experience, man. Popefelix 01:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When the movie came out it WAS shocking and erotic and revolutionary, nowadays its seen as a classic, and the current stage shows are more up to date in terms of music, eroticism and general fun. The music isnt forgettable, if it was there wouldnt be like 20 versions of the soundtrack, and covers, and the Time Warp wouldnt be one of the most well known songs ever! The songs are fantastic, the film is a classic and very enjoyable as is the stage show, which is more for the 21st century crowd.

---

I like the section; it's very informative. But, in the discussion of 20th Century Fox prohibiting the use of their logo in the film, the writer mentions "stage show". Shouldn't it be "floor show" instead? That's what Frank-n-Furter called it in the film. Jmeola75 02:03, 07 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

It was the 15th anniversary VHS where RHPS fan club president Sal Piro pushed for a STEREO mix, that the album mix replaced the original mix. This was done out of laziness. The 25th Anniversary DVD release corrects that mistake, by going back to the original audio stems recorded during filming, and constructing a 5.1 surround mix of that.

Cult following

This section is getting silly and definitely borders on unencyclopedic. It needs cleanup. Naming specific theatres is absurd. Apart from mentioning the beginnings at the Waverly and the longest running cast in Allentown, PA, I don't see any need to list what theatres still do or used to do RHPS. I'm not going to start deleting stuff, but just wanted to see what others thought. -- Krash 17:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Its got a bit out of hand, yes. The Waverly and The Classic were (seperately) basically the first to put it on a recurring basis, it seems - all the others listed seem to be newer, and/or don't even show it anymore. Neither does The Classic though; it closed down... --Kiand 20:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It got that way mostly as a reaction to someone posting (as fact) that tidbit above about there only being 7 theatres in ths US playing it. --Baylink 21:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to drop the entire listing - screw it, the waverly is the best known, as I'd even heard of it here (being a Classic atendee for a few showings may have assisted that...) --Kiand 23:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actualy, Although the Waverly is well known it was not the first place Rocky Horror Played. I have added the correct premier location and date.--69.62.180.166 02:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

List of songs?

A list of songs would be nice. It's neither here nor at The Rocky Horror Show. <KF> 19:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

$NAME vs NAME

I think it's better not to use the unix variable, because ven though it's a nice way of describe it, and a amusing, it is confusing to readers that have no clue about unix or bash variables, following the advice on jargon if $NAME is to be used, it should at least be explained. <drini ☎> 02:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Cite this

This seems a bit more obscure than Dark Side of the Rainbow. Also of questionable notability, really. -- Krash 16:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• There are several coincidences between Pink Floyd's Album and Film The Wall. Nell Campbell, who in Rocky Horror plays a character listed in the credits as "Columbia (A groupie)", plays "groupie" in the film Pink Floyd's The Wall. Tim Curry, who played Frank, also played a character in Roger Waters' extravagant concert performace of The Wall Live in Berlin in 1990. The two also share a rather recognisable sound effect which seems equally inexplicable and out of place in both, being used when the wheelchair is pulled across the room and when the RKO tower collapses in Rocky Horror, and at the end of In the Flesh? in The Wall. Finally, one of the distinctive images of the film of The Wall is a terrified-looking face pushing through the wall, which is almost identical to the front cover of [Gabriel Knight] II: The Beast Within, the sequel to the very popular game Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers, in which the main character's voice actor was Tim Curry (Frank).

Can't believe you forgot to mention the almost exact way that Tim is filmed inside the swimming pool with the s.s.titanic lifeboat and Bob Geldof in the swimming pool outside the hotel. More incredible is the use of the zoom in there which gives it an exact feeling in both. Also, although coincidence, Tim looks a lot like Bob Geldof when he gets off the water and sings I'm going home.

Holocaust references in RHPS

Krash, before I continue the argument, I need to know your basis of understanding. Do you have an explanation for the string of pearls Frank wears in the creation scene? And, if so, have you ever heard of Polari? 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FiveRings (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

This isn't a debate. I'm simply asking that you provide some evidence which would support that the ideas expressed within the text in question came from somewhere other than your own observations. Please read WP:NOR. -- Krash 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of Wikipedia practices. But I don't need an outside source to identify a pink triangle as a pink triangle, or a gragger as a gragger. The first has become a gay pride symbol, but that wasn't its origin. (And everything known to mankind isn't yet on the internet). I have one source that may be able to get confirmation from (in London in the early 70's, it would have been obvious). 20:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Frank does not wear a pink triangle. It is red. And it's reference is to political prisoners not gay holocuast victims.--69.62.180.166 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that someone else has now noted the Holocaust references, in the context of Dr. Strangelove analogies (wasn't me). Perhaps, rather than a trivia section (or in addition), there should be a section on "references, in-jokes, and symbols". (Thus, the pearl necklace and the pink triangle could be explained, but also lots of other stuff, like the medusa). FiveRings 04:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That note has now been removed as POV. Doesn't change the suggestion, however. (Is this thing on?). FiveRings 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Does no-one else think Frank's lighting flag looks a lot like the Flash and Circle, a British fascist symbol? boffy_b 11:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Research. Unless theres a decent reference saying that the RHPS represents the holocaust, it should not be included, in any way. --Kiand 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

New image

I changed the image in the Infobox to the original movie poster. (Ibaranoff24 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Average age of fanbase?

"Generally however, although most critics account this film as tripe, the groundbreaking and frank dip into taboo ensures that it is a hit for the teen and pre-teen fanbase."

Pre-teen? That must be a joke, right?

- - - No--many of our audience members and cast members (Chicago) first saw the film at home on video (with their parents) while still in grammar school. You'd be surprised how many 10-year-olds can do the Time Warp! Some have had birthday outings to our show, with parents in tow, when their folks have decided they're finally old enough for the theater experience (15th or 16th birthday is seems usual). IMHO a theater showing with live cast is not for the preteen crowd.

We once had a grandmother bring her grandkids to our show, to explain to them what she did in college. (She had been a member of the original fan cast from the Biograph Theater).

Our usual audience seems to be primarily older high school and college-age fans, with a smaller sprinking of older longtime fans (20 to 50 years old). - - -

Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" has Rocky Horror like following

According to a NPR story I heard, a laugh-out-loud hilariously awful film called "The Room" by writer/director/star Tommy Wiseau has gained a Rocky Horror like following in LA, and I suspect more cities are to follow. Could somebody with a Wikipedia account start an article or stub about it and might it (and possibly other films with audience participation screenings?) warrant a mention in the Rocky Horror main article? Anyway, here are some links:

Movie Site: [4]

NPR Article: [5]

Amazon.com DVD: [6]

IMDB Entry: [7]

Well, it probably wasn't because of my request, but an article about "The Room" appeared recently, it's of considerable length and detail, and made over the course of only several hours mostly by a couple of authors. (Check the history and you'll see how quickly it was created and edited). And here I was expecting only a stub that would slowly be added to.

Movie deals with adultery???

The article states the movie deals with the topic of adultery. How? Janet and Brad are not married. Cheating on a boyfriend or girlfriend is not adultery. Davez621 15:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Brad and Janet were engaged when they met Frank 'N Furter and Rocky.

Cheating on a fiance isn't adultery either. --Kiand 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not by definition, but most would consider it to be a form of adultery in spirit Riffraffselbow 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Riff Raff and Magenta are brother and sister. Their embrace at the end of the movie is the reference here. Matt 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could a section about conservatism versus liberalism be included? Brad and Janet end up confused and abandoned at the end of the film as a result of losing their conservative inhibitions. Yet Frank 'n'furter urges 'Don't dream it- be it'. It seems to me that the film suggests enjoying yourself but that you should not go too far. (this is different to the 'anything goes' message which many seem to read into the film).

RHPS userbox

Code	Result
{{user Rocky Horror}}	Hoopla!This user is a Rocky Horror fanatic.

RKO Pictures

I just tossed RKO Pictures into See also. I feel like there deserves to be more of an explicit connexion between the two. Does someone feel like throwing together a paragraph or so? samwaltz 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tripe?

The sentence, "Generally however, although most critics account this film as tripe, the groundbreaking dip into taboo ensures that it is a hit for the teen and pre-teen fanbase," seems really POV to me. Also, pre-teen? Really? What 8-year-old do you think would be interested in this movie? PacificBoy 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove it. I'm surprised it hasn't been removed before, it's blatantly and insultingly POV.--Agent Aquamarine 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this article has been heavily edited in the past by people NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR with the movies fanbase and their age. The only tripe is the complete lack of historical accuracy of that statement. You could research before you type.

Great Question

What's so great about it? --66.218.11.146 07:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to explain to someone who's never seen it, so see it.--Agent Aquamarine 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Master and Margarita

I have added the "trivia" fact that similarities between the two are often commented upon by people familiar with both RHPC and the landmark absurdist novel Master and Margarita, and that there might be an inspiration. --Misha bb 10:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This looks awfully WP:ORy. Is there any at all notable source for the comparison? ^L_Wizard @ 11:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Notable sources" for it being "often commented upon"? It's not like this is saying RHPS is "taken" from Master/Margarita or anything. It's just stating the fact that the two works are hugely similar, and this doesn't go unnoticed for people who've read the book and wathced the movie... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.240.157.30 (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Then can you at least find me two separate places on the internet where the comparison is made? I found one person who noted the connection, in an Amazon review. You might also rewrite it to make it sound less like "Hey, I just noticed that. . ." ^L_Wizard @ 09:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Well, I'm on it! :) This is not something I "just noticed", by the way, I've heard the similarity referred to many times - although I haven't seen it in writing, so far. It ought to be out there somewhere, though, because there is an astounding similarity. Although, maybe the people who review classic Soviet litterature for newsmagazines and websites ain't the same people who review RHPS (and the newsmags/websites who review classic Soviet litterature may not review RHPS at all). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.240.157.30 (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

References in pop culture

This section has become much too long, and full of references from sources that are not particularly notable. If we included every RHPS joke ever included in any webcomic then the list could go on for pages and pages. If we must have a list, let's try to limit it to a few examples of significant RHPS references in popular media. CKarnstein 06:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a new page Rocky Horror references in pop culture? Break it down by genre (film, tv, comic, etc.) That way, it wouldn't clutter up the article, but serves as a place to warehouse info. samwaltz 05:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

Can someone fix the looooooooong sentence found at the start of the article? hobbie 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• The hedonistic 'Frank 'n'furter' and partygoers hint at the decadence of the 1970s but it is the 1950s that is shot through this film like lettering in a stick of rock: eg. the rock and roll of Meatloaf's leather-clad biker character 'Cousin Eddie', the way that Dr Scott hints at the Communist 'witch-hunts' of the 1950s, the way that, as if it is only just post-war, that several characters seem to have Germanic origins that they try to disguise (for example, the 'Weiss' of Janet Weiss not only sounds like 'vice' but is German for 'white'- this therefore sounds like a comment of the character's supposed initial pureness that is tempted, Adam and Eve-like, not only by 'Frank 'n' furter' but also by Rocky and, indeed, simply the anything-goes nature of the house itself.)

I pared it down a bit, at the cost of some discussion of Janet's name and temptation. There was little of value lost, IMHO. ^L_Wizard @ 07:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree- I wrote it but I wouldn't mind another section about possible religious subtexts. I've got no proof that Richard O'Brien intended a twist on the Garden of Eden but I could see Janet as Eve, Brad as Adam and Frank as the serpent with the house as the garden itself which, like Adam and Eve, they end up banished from at the end, The human race ends up crawling across the earth's face, 'without meaning' suggesting Godlessness. The song 'There's a light' earlier could have a religious meaning (Brad and Janet are fooled into thinking there is spiritual goodness in the house).

That is an interesting take on it, but as unsourced speculation comes under WP:NOR --Brideshead 09:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links -- Either All or None

I agree with AMad on this one -- either the external links remain, *including* the fan sites, or the external links are whittled down to official and historical sites. Personally, I don't think Rocky Radio should appear, as it has a habit of "disappearing" from time to time. The rest of the current batch of external links are very stable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ioniclobster (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I have created a new page for the RHPS Cult following. I posted three external linls there of the three largest Metropolitan areas that show Rocky. They were deleted but i put them back with the argument that they have a historic significance. I added NYC, Chigago and Long beach. East Coast, Mid West and West Coast.

As for Rocky Radio, I agree that it should be deleted as they are not a notable site, have no historic significance and are not always even there as well as not being reliable. I will, however, not be the one deleting it.--Amadscientist 03:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Musical Theatre

Hello. I notice that you recently joined the Musicals project. Please weigh in at the discussion at the New Girl in Town article's talk page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI: 30 Years run citation

The Rocky Horry Picture Show has run in Munich, Germany for 30 years now: http://www.30jahre-rockyhorror.de/ http://www.museum-lichtspiele.de/cms/ 88.217.3.67 17:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC) toby

External Links

A majority of the external links were moved to the RHPS Cult Following section, where they are more appropriate for Fan related sites. On this page external links make more sense if they pertain directly to the movie itself.--Amadscientist 22:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Taglines

These taglines are not notable. According to the Style guidelines, "As a general rule don't include taglines in an article. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". However, if a particular tagline was a significant part of the cultural influence of the film, create a section for it and describe its effects." It provides an example of this as Jaws 2's tagline, "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..." which is indeed a notable tagline. The only taglines that are at all notable aren't notable because they're taglines, they're notable because they're memorable quotes from the movie.

But why does it matter? Because they are unprofessional and unecyclopedic. They make the article "all listy," which greatly detracts form its quality. This is why it has a clean-up tag. (As a side note, moving the lists to the bottom doesn't really help the problem at all.) Atropos 23:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am un-willing to use your opinion as to what is notable and here is why. You are forgetting the historic refereance to the example you gave. "A different set of Jaws". I am returning the deleted section. Should Wiki Admin weigh in on this, I will do what they decide. Just coming around and saying something is not this or is that, does not make it true. I ask that you provide a basis to your belief that the Taglines from Rocky Horror are not notable or are you just not familier with the film?.--Amadscientist 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If the taglines are culturally significant they will be quoted in a published source. I'm removing them again, per WP:REF. If you chose to re-add them, please provide citations. --Gimme danger 03:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion, my link wasn't right: Try this. See also WP:REF and WP:N and WP:NOT. Consensus is clear that these taglines should go. Atropos 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just exactly what do you call a consensus? Two people against one?--Amadscientist 04:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I call those links consensus. By the way, with WP:NOT I meant WP:UNENC, I should have been more specific. Atropos 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag lines List re-added. Dispute of it's removal

I am returning the Tagline list again. The Taglines from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" are both culturely significant (Don't Dream It, Be it, and Let's do the Time Warp Again, both used as song lyrics and later as tag lines for the film in Print advertisement are two of the most remembered Tags as well as the original "A Different Set of Jaws") and Quoted in publications such as Time Magazine and Newspaper articles from coast to coast including the Fresno Bee, Sacramento bee and Modesto Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle as well as the New York Times. There is also the book "The Rocky Horror Picture Show Book" by Bill Henkin. That does answer to both Arguements from above. I officialy dispute it's removal. This is an article about a motion picture not about an individual item. There is going to be at least two list in ALL articles about films. The cast and crew and if its a musical a song list. Where advertisement has a significant historical context or influence it is notable to add the list. The call was for a cleanup not just a mass deletion. Plus I recommend both of the above to add citations as I have. I am looking through alot of media and will be adding more.

I would like to now hear from a Wiki Admin on the subject as I believe it is the only way to end the dispute. --Amadscientist 05:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are confused on an important part of wikipedia policy: admins are not in any real position of authority. Things are decided by consensus and an admin's opinion is worth no more than any users. As I said above, consensus is clearly against you and the inclusion of these taglines. Atropos 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are incorrect about what a consensus is. Please see below to the Wiki definition of Consensus. Also A true consesus takes time. More than you are allowing, per Wikipedia policy. --Amadscientist 10:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus should not be for or against an individual but about the subject. --Amadscientist 01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, your arguments are clearly wrong. First, the taglines were not used as song lyrics, the song lyrics were used as taglines. Also, the fact that there is a book about the rocky horror show that mentions the taglines does not mean the article should. Also, you will notice that many featured articles about films do not use lists for the casting at all, but instead do it in paragraph form. Atropos 03:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My arguement is not "clearly wrong" and you misinterpreted what I said about the songs "titles". I mention that they were taken from the songs and used as Taglines. I DO HOWEVER AGREE with you assesment of the article having been too "listy" and removed two lists for the following reasons. The cast list was doubled and there is no reason for all the variouse ratings from different countries. There was silence after this removal, which constitutes a consensus. --Amadscientist 01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The taglines have no real cultural significance. Go up to the average boomer and ask him what movie any of those taglines reference, and you won't get any recognition at all. Think about it: the very definition of "cult movie" implies that little about the movie has widespread cultural significance. By the time you get to tertiary material like advertising campaigns, it won't have any. Give it the Leno test ... if Jay Leno made a reference to one of those taglines as the punchline of a joke, would the audience laugh? I think not. Kww 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are basing YOUR OPINION on YOUR OWN ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The bases of keeping these tags lines is that they are more notable than the average. There are cultural effects. Just because you have not felt them or use references to Jay Leno does not make my point any less valued. And it is extremly rude and borderline vandlism to continue to remove something out of your own opinion. You guys need to reread Wiki policy because your way off base by just deleting without attempting to rewrite it or edit it with out consensus. You just say Wiki doesn't allow it....and that is not true. I poted the policy. It does not say they don't allow it!--Amadscientist 03:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Who added the clean up tag (June 2007) and why

It would apear that a recent Clean up tag added to this article was not done so by Wiki Admin. But by member H2g2bob. No explanation given. While it certainly was true, I believe that the article has been cleaned up enough and I am now removing the tag my self. I will certainly not remove it again if Wiki admin decides it is needed but as of this time to much is being deleted due to the tag. --Amadscientist 20:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Things are being deleted because they are clearly against policy, not because there is a tag. The tag is notifying users and readers of the problem; removing the tag does not remove the problem. Again, members don't have any less authority to tag articles than Wiki Admins do. Atropos 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Two against one on a subject that has been a part of this article for years is not a consensus. You still have not made an arguement why it should be deleted you are still just adding links. Do some work dude. The tag lines are going to be returned by myself everytime you delete them untill you give good reason, and i insist on words. --Amadscientist 04:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Those links are our justification. It is very clear that these taglines are detrimental to the article. Atropos

Also you have no idea what you are talking about. You have screwed up my wording about song lyrics and I doubt your informed about Wiki standards enough to pushing it on others. I repeat, just deleting the tag lines mean nothing! A consensus takes time not just two days. For all I know you contacted the other person. To reach a consensus you need more time and many more people. Untill my computer dies or you offer reasoning as to why these tags MUST be removed I will continue reverting the edit.--Amadscientist 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually you probably won't. Please familiarize yourself with policy. Atropos 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what, since you want provide it I will here is the Wiki standards as provided in your link;

Tagline Even the Greatest of Taglines is Still Just a Marketing Gimmick

As a general rule don't include taglines in an article. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". However, if a particular tagline was a significant part of the cultural influence of the film, create a section for it and describe its effects. For example, none of the many taglines for Wes Craven's New Nightmare deserve mention. On the other hand, discussing Jaws 2 without mentioning "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..." would be a glaring omission. (You make the call... remember be bold.)

Well it's my call as well as hundreds of other editors of this page. You are one person and i don't take orders from you.--Amadscientist 04:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Why don't you justify the inclusion of these taglines? Prove that they should be there. Atropos 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the plan and I am researching the documentation. Some has been read and then stuck away. This is not of the top of my head. This is from 30 years experiance with this film. But that is only why I know this stuff. It is not my research or my experiance, it is discussed seceral places. --Amadscientist 03:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever 75.206.164.20 is, they made an edit to the tag line section that works for me right now untill I am able to find the the article that discusses the cultural significants of the Rocky Horror Taglines throughout the years. I belive it was either from the Book "Midnight Movies" or "Creatures of the Night". However I know there was a recent newspaper article that someone shared with me as well discussing phrases from Rocky and how some have become main stream. --Amadscientist 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the removal permanent or not of the Taglines section

To avoid further conflict I will not revert I will edit as stated and to avoid further problems I am asking for a consensus to know what the majority wants without just deleting which it seems is a pretty bad loophole on the site. I can see how i was wrangled nearly into being banned just by the referts but I can tell you there are other ways to deal with this issue and I am not the one who came in slicing without discussion. But that is easy to overlook. I believe the tag lines should be kept, as they are notable and have a historic and cultural significants.--Amadscientist 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't have any particular cultural significance, and don't warrant inclusion in the article. Can you quote any external source that shows some cultural impact on the world from the taglines?

BTW, you weren't "wrangled" at all. If I was trying to wrangle you, I wouldn't have warned you that you were about to violate the 3RR rule. I would have just let you keep it up, and then reported you.

Kww 04:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but using abbrev isn't any kind of warning. Use words next time. Again do not make others do your work for you. This section on the discussion page is for a poll to see other peoples opinion on whwether to keep the section or not. I am following Wiki policy you are not. Continued deletion is just as bad as 3RR. We will not count any unsigned comments. Unless the person comes back abd adds signature that comment after my paragraph above does not count. --Amadscientist 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I did sign, just forgot the colon to keep the indent level straight (I inserted it). You really should have two on yours. I told you that you could get blocked, and told you to look up 3RR. Who is it that wants other people to do their work for them? Kww 21:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I did look up 3RR nothing comes up. However if you would have used real words and asked if i was aware of the "3 reverts rule" that would have been better instead you gave me a warning not explaining yourself fully and acting as if you were admin. Perhaps it is just a communications thing and I am just spoiled by talkiing with people that don't make huge judgement calls based on their own opinion. At any rate I am stepping away from the article for a cooling off period and if this conflict should continue then will take the next appropriate steps. I have been editng for only a short time but have never encountered this type of selfish attitude. Now knowing more about Wikis suggestions for avoiding an "Edit War" I intend to follow through as advised in the Wiki Guidlines for this situation. --69.62.180.166 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Peacock terms

I put the peacock tag up because I really don't have the patience to go through and delete/alter them all. Or maybe I will after dealing with references. --Gimme danger 07:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way before I removed the peacock tage I completely re-wrote the plot section that was the major problem. --Amadscientist 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, After some tought on this I believe I understand what The two Wiki two editors Gimmedanger and Atropos are doing. It appears that they are strict code and policy enforcers. They are attempting to keep the structure of the article within the frame work given by Wikipedia. However I believe they may take things a bit far and demand a little much I will back off and see what they contribute. Gimmedanger has fixed references to adhere to policy and I am happy to see it done (as outlined by wiki, I added the references and then Gimme fixed the formating) So the only thing I can critisize is Atropos idea of a consensus and not waiting more than a day to delete after adding to the discussion. We here have been discussing a complete re-write for several months, but out of respect for the hundreds of edits I waited to see what others thought. A consensus of several members and several months has lead me to rewrite the plot section. --Amadscientist 09:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We are attempting to follow policy. That is all. Atropos 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most are. You are being a nazi about it. I am sticking to my guns here. I contribute. You throw around Wiki phrases and policy as it is your duty to get everyone to adhere to your somewhat questionable interpretation of it. Again we can do this over and over. You delete it, I put it back. After there has been discussion and a period of time there will be more people commenting and adding to the discussion with their opinion. If you don't like it, take your keyboard and go home. I suggest you take a better look at your discussion page because you have a history of people complaining about your not ussing the talk page and going right in and deleting. Well, I'll tell you what sir. I am not leting you get away with it where I am a major contributor. We discuss things here. --Amadscientist 03:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Godwinized! Atropos 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For the win --Gimme danger 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law does not question whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. --Amadscientist 10:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Taglines (please keep the discussion in this secton

Okay, this discussion has become non-linear and confusingly spread over multiple sections. Let's continue from this point in a single section.

First: My statement of bias. I first saw the film a few months ago. It immediately became the best film ever. I've never seen it in a theatre, but I'd very much like to.

The taglines are not notable. Everyone but Amadscientist (Whose judgment may be clouded by his having been a frequent participant in RHPS showings for 30 years; that is to say, I believe he has an exaggerated opinion of the film's notability because it is very notable to him. This is completely understandable.) so far has seemed to agree. He has finally reduced it to a two line paragraph about the two taglines that weren't just quotes from the movie. However, these taglines aren't notable either.

The lips, however, are mentioned in this section as well. I think they actually are notable. I would say that they may be more recognizable than any character in the film, as they are used as an icon for it. It looks like you even have some information about that, and it would be great if you could properly source it and write about the lips. However, they probably don't deserve their own section, but part of a section on Reception or Influence. Atropos 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My 30 years off experiance with the film makes me at least aware of the cultural significants of the tag lines used in later marketing. The edit reducing it to two lines was made by someone else but is at the very least a glaring example of how little real work Atropos puts into his edits. The time magazine article and cover is probably the vest example of the notability of the tag lines in a historic perspective. Again "Lets Do The Time Warp Again" is a tag line from the movie as well as "Don't Dream It, Be it" as they have bothe been used as tag lines and have had an impact on our culture. You keep repeating that the taglines are not notable but offer nothing to back that up. So far I count three members ( I am asumming GimmeDanger believes they are not notable as well ) But because there is someone offering reason if not a source as yet, I believe that you should offer more than opinion as to it's removal. --Amadscientist 00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. I've tried to ignore your continuing insinuations that I somehow do not contribute enough to voice an opinion, but they're getting on my nerves. Atropos 04:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Again our opinions differ. I see no personal attack. You don't have your facts straight. I did not edit the subject down to two lines. That was done by 75.206.164.20 and I had no objection to it. I don't know why you make such huge leaps but now I see why Wiki has so many factual problems. You began this by saying my opinion didn't matter and started deleting over and over again a subject that has no reason to be removed. You then offered only a link to the actual Wiki policy that does not support your claim that tag line section cannot be there. You continue to pick this fight yet offer no legitimate reason for your deletion except that two others so far agree with you. You skirt around policy and continue to throw around the Wiki phrases and continue to talk as if I started this and I am the one being offensive. Look you've been on my nerves since you began this. It isn't that you don't contribute enough for anything....you don't research and look before you make claims. I will say this I still have not seen you contribut to this talk page a real reason to support your claim that these taglines need to be removed.

Also you want me to assume good faith but don't give any yourself. I can only assume that you just want your way. How else am supposed to think. This is not your first problem of this nature. You seriously crack me up. Do you even read these links? Here, this is another part of the personal attack link;

"Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute." --Amadscientist 05:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going try a complete cooling off period away from even these talk pages. I have not edited this article since yesterday and will now sign out from these pages for another 24 hours. --Amadscientist 05:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you to stop attacking me yet you continue to do so. You have called me a Nazi, told me I do not contribute enough to participate in the discussion, said that I put no work into my edits (aside: you are correct that I assumed it was you who wrote the tagline section, seeing as you are the only one who has voiced any support of its inclusion on the talk page), told me that I crack you up, and suggested that I do not read the policy pages I link you to. Also, I have behaved according the quote you reference; I refrained from commenting on your attacks for some time. Hopefully when you return we can resolve this issue civilly. Atropos 23:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You confuse me greatly. You continue to use the term "personal attack" as if that makes it true. It does not. You have even taken me out of context at least twice. Having said that I now offer an apology for anything I said that you may have taken as such. However you continue the "Edit War" by removing or "invisibling" the section with out offering any source yourself for your opinion.

I will be adding the section back soon with full reference sources that I have found to support my assertion that the Taglines I mentioned are notable. The original tagline is listed as one of great taglines among others. I also found an article on The Rocky Horror Picture Show as Cultural Performance with references to taglines. Also, the 2005 addition of the movie to the National Film Registry by Librarian of Congress James H. Billington which I believe gives the taglines historic significance as well.

Should this still not satisfy the above editors I will continue to follow Wiki policy for dispute resolution, which for some reason no one else is doing. Thank you. (PS- I don't know if this was 24 hours, but close enough) --Amadscientist 06:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I believe the comparison to Nazis fit your actions I can see how that would be interpreted as "personal attack" and apologize seperately for that. It was out of frustration. --Amadscientist 01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus in Practice

I feel this merits a posting;

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:

In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.

Note: In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to majority rule to my position; it is not uncommon to see both sides in an edit war claiming a consensus for its version of the article.--Amadscientist 09:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also it bears mentioning that silence is a consensus according to Wiki policy. The Taglines as they were before the first deletion had been there for years with no mention from editors as to it's removal. Therefore deletion of the section constitutes going against the current consensus. What you are doing now is looking for a new consensus and you should leave the section there untill a consensus is made. You have not given enough time for it. Having found references to add to the section I will then be attempting a different consensus. Deleting that when placed is Edit Waring. --Amadscientist 10:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't start this edit war again. You are the only editor arguing for this section. Atropos, Gimme Danger, and myself are all against it. Why don't you think that constitutes a consensus? Does it have something to do with the fact that you disagree with the result? Kww 20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

READ WIKI POLICY! (And actually Gimmdanger has not added input to this as yet) Majority rule is not a consensus! Removing a section with out discussion when even a single person objects based on the past consensus is what started the Edit War NOT ME. DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION UNTILL A CONSENSUS IS BUILT AND THIS DISPUTE IS OVER! --Amadscientist 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I re-read and Gimmedanger did way in and stated if I should re-add the section to site sources, which I have done. Atropos made pretty much the same statement. --Amadscientist 22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your sources have not convinced me in the slightest.

The first citation lists it as a tagline amongst 99 other taglines that are considered by the author the best taglines. Are you serious? 1 of 100 of 1 person's favorite taglines? This does not make the tagline notable. Its listed among such memorable taglines as "Go-Go For a Wild Ride With the ACTION GIRLS!" for Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, "At the end of the universe lies the beginning of vengeance." for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, "A tale of murder, lust, greed, revenge, and seafood." for A Fish Called Wanda, "You won't know the facts until you've seen the fiction." for Pulp Fiction and "There are 3.7 trillion fish in the ocean. They're looking for one." for Finding Nemo. Again; "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water" has a huge cultural significance; "Another set of Jaws" does not.

The second citation is an article about the cultural significance of the film. You continue to hold to some strange idea that "Don't dream it; Be it" was a tagline first and a quote from the movie second; this is so obviously wrong that I can't believe it has to be discussed: movies are marketed after they are made; the tagline was selected because it is a quote from the film which is central to its narrative, being repeated several times during the memorable and climactic dance sequence. It is notable, therefore, as a quote from the film, not as a tagline for it.

The third citation does not mention taglines at all and your sentence very much misrepresents the source. You seem to be trying to do this honestly, so I'm very confused by it.

In the end, your citations do not prove notability. Also, the section is very essay-ish, trying to prove that the taglines are notable. A good litmus test: if the information is notable, you don't have to prove it is in the text. Please just remove the this and get on to improving the article. Atropos 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Again...the tagline "Don't Dream it, Be it" was taken from the song title and used as a tagline. This movie has been playing in theatres for 30 years. The taglines have changed. The Original tagline at release was "He's the Heroe, That's Right the Heroe". That is not notable. Now you are trying to dance around my work in order to get your way and it REALLY doesn't work that way.

The last source does prove notability. You just don't care. You sir are now nit picking. Wikipedia has a policy and procedure for dealing with this conflict. I suggest you go with it. It was wrong to continue to delete the section without a consensus. I believe it to be notable, I have added my sources. I ask that since you still feel the way you do that we now leave it in (Is it really killing you to do so) untill time, discussion and input from the RFC has formed a TRUE consensus. If you cannot follow the Wikipedia "Dispute Resolution" Procedure than I simply will ask for protection for the article untill the dispute is settled. Then we go into mediation, then arbitration. Believe it or not, if the consensus is to remove it I will live with it. Let me ask you this....if the consensus is to keep it will YOU go along with it. You seem unwilling to wait the proper amount of time to allow a true consensus but maybe you are just frustrated. --Amadscientist 03:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The first source is a published list and is not a private home page. It stands as a source. --Amadscientist 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up and wikified the section a bit. My experience is that good grammar and proofreading are helpful in an edit dispute. It wouldn't hurt to find some more reviews or other reliable sources mentioning the taglines, but I do think that the two mentioned now have had an impact on popular culture, at least in the U.S. I took out the Rocky one, which had no reference and was not, AFAIK, as well-known as the other two. Also, the library of congress reference supports the notability of the movie in general, rather than the taglines, no? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. I admit my spelling is simply awful especialy when rushed. The subject is something I have spent a great deal of time researching even before I joined Wikipedia. I feel pretty bad about the dispute here, especialy that Atropos feels that I have personaly attacked him. I feel I need to thank the editors that I have been in this dispute with whether or not they feel strongly about the situation, it has helped me learn a great deal more about Wikipedia policy. I only hope that in the future these editors, who seem very inteligent and passionate themselves, will try to understand the side of the oppisition (that's probably spelled wrong) to their views and take more time to listen to others reasoning before repeated deletions. I know it made me think about my reactions to it. They have a great deal to offer this article. I do not wish the "Edit War" to continue so I am hoping that this will end with good input, (one way or the other) and a full consensus of the subject. (again one way or the other) --Amadscientist 08:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution procedure

I am not sure exactly why some editors think that they can delete a section without following policy, then accuse me of Edit Waring when I defend the section and the former consensus but I will not be bullied by people that think their actions should not be questioned. They may be used to that but it is not the Wikipedia Policy. I have removed the "List" and re-written the section. I have provided reference sources as asked. I have created a discussion for the consensus. I have made a RFC thru the main project for this article. I have even tried speaking directly to the editors. I will continue the Dispute Resolution procedures as per the Wikipedia policy. --Amadscientist 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've brought up an RfC. Hopefully that will bring us towards the end of this situation. Atropos 05:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Where did you post your RfC. I did not see anything on the Project discussion pages. You should not be asking for RfC outside the project scope. --Amadscientist 23:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[[I put it in the Art, architecture, literature and media section, where it belongs. Atropos 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the Project Arts, there is nothing on the discussion page there. I am a member of Project architecture, there is nothing there. (which is not the proper place for this discussion anyway) Why did you bother to ask for a RfC if you intended to edit the section? --Amadscientist 00:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright....but those are not the articles project pages but, whatever. --Amadscientist 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Atropos you do not appear to be able to even accept the opinion of anyone that agrees with keeping information in this section. We are in the middle of a dispute. Please try to allow others to add to the consensus before you yourself make changes withou citations and reference sources. --Amadscientist 23:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also you should be warned at this time that your actions are becoming disruptive to this article as you are refusing to to wait for the Wikipedia required consesus and discussion. You continue to change the section to suit your opinion. That is clearly a violation of Wikipedia Policy, and constitutes Original Research. --Amadscientist 00:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I should be warned for editing the article in a way you disagree with. I've tried to be civil, but I am getting very tired of this. Atropos 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty annoying, isn't it? Amadscientist, Atropos has been anything but disruptive. He's been civil, even when provoked. There is a consensus about the taglines. You, and only you, seem to disagree. If you would allow the rest of us to edit without constantly reverting in material that the rest of us want to delete, the process would go much more smoothly. Kww 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Kww you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't care what the individual opinions are of the two of you. I am not the only one now. If you can't follow Wikipedias Guidlines on Consensus and Dispute Resolution that is your problem. Atropos, the problem is not your editing, it's using your opinion that is clearly original research as well as editing after you request Rfc. --Amadscientist 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are editing because you disagree. You are using your own opinion and original resaerch at this point. Your opinion of the citations is not consensus. My warning was of the actions that you take against Wiki policy. Becoming tired of the situation is no excuse for making desisions against consensus that is not formed. You made a RfC then changed the section. What do you think your doing exactly? The "request for comment" is to form a consensus. You can't make the request for RfC then do what you want any way. That is clearly disruptive. --Amadscientist 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A hypothetical question: assuming that when the hold is lifted, you still haven't found anyone else in favor of the taglines being in the article, will a consensus exist then?

Kww 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No. A true consensus requires a discussion and time. Under normal circimstances that could be anywhere between a month or two to allow as many members of the article projects to give input. However there is a dispute of the section. Dispute Resolution procedure has not been fully applied. If you use even the "majority Rule" theory (which is not consensus) there are two against and two for and one that had requested references and has not added input since.

However what I suppose I should be explaining is that just because there are some that believe it should be deleted and some that believe it should stay what is important is not that anyone of us get our way, but that a true consensus of editors be made. That may require some time. Patience is important but more than that, allowing the article to maintain all referenced information to stand without deleting it when there is not silence to the deletion. When you delete something and no one objects, especialy after some time period, than that is a consensus in itself. Clearly I objected to the deletion. I have made a "Request for comment" to get more people to join in on the discussion, and ask that the information stand. There have been several edits to the section and is no longer the same section that was deleted. Continued deletion of the section as re-writen to conform to Wiki standards is "Edit warring". Because the orignal section is long gone...all new consensus is now being formed. --Amadscientist 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One other thing. The true benifit of all this is the article itself. In reasearching the importance of these taglines, information that was not included was discovered such as the National Film Registry inclusion in 2005. To me, regardless of the consensus of the newly written section, at least new information is being discovered and added that is of high importance and great relevance. --Amadscientist 05:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. It doesn't have to be months. That is just an estimate. There has to be discussion. I have seen it take that long. I have also seen it take only a few weeks. But it does take some time. --Amadscientist 08:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand you. We have to continue to waste time talking about this for months before you, the only person who actually wants those taglines (correction: that tagline, we've gotten you to get rid of all but one tagline and something else that isn't actually notable as a tagline) will accept that no one agrees with you and consensus is against you, despite all the precedent we've cited (don't just link me to pages!), your inability to find any good citation (that's just your opinion!), and the overwhelming agreement of every other involved party (but you're just three people!). Please, just admit that you are wrong or go away. I hate this stupid argument, but I'm not going to let you win by attrition. Atropos 06:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well....You simpy are not looking at the comments sir. There are now three people that see no reason to remove the section as it is written now and two that still want it removed. That still is not a consensus. Yes I expect you to follow Wikipedia policy and not allow your personal dislike of me to effect this article. I really think you should look at all of what is written, not just on these talk pages but the policy about consesus. The link to websites is a legitmate way to cite a source. It is done on thousands of pages. And was properly formatted by Gimme Danger. IN fact that formatting has taught me how to properly site the website. Non web sources such as books only list page number ans isp numbers. I have gone way out of my way to stick to Wikipedia policy on this. I will continue to do so. --Amadscientist 07:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, what happens when one goes on vacation. I think the section looks pretty good now. I haven't checked the references for myself yet, but they look fairly legitimate. I have nothing in particular against taglines, as long as a reliable source can be cited for their notableness. Gimme danger 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I explain above, only one tagline ("Another set of Jaws") is actually listed as a tagline and its source for notability is its inclusion in a list of equally unnotable taglines. Atropos 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One, that is merely your opinion. The list is of memorable taglines. Second, I have a citation for the other Tagline as well seperately. Hey, I let go of "Let's Do The Time Warp Again" because I didn't find the source I was looking for. Someone else may later down the line. You are simply not thinking straight and are very frustrated. As I see it the only thing that will satisfy you is removing the section no matter what. That is just not right. --Amadscientist 07:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are destined for inclusion in WP:LAME. Kww 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

There are still more citations need for this article. I have added the tags in hopes someone will add the need reference sources. I will also look for these, as they are not that difficult to find. --Amadscientist 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Some corrections

Once the full protection is lifted there are some changes I noticed that need to be made. First currently the National Film Registry has 450 films in it's list not 475...actually that's it for right now. --Amadscientist 05:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh there was another item needed. The page only states the UK release and not the US release date which is September 26th, 1975. --Amadscientist 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

I've thought about this for a while and this is what I'm willing to agree to.

1. A section called Impact which describes the cultural impact this film has had.

2. In this section, the inclusion of information about the cultural impact of quotes from the film such as "Don't Dream It; Be It" and "Let's Do the Time Warp Again" which are not notable for being taglines.

3. In this section, a sentence: One of the film's taglines, "A different set of Jaws" was included in a list of the one hundred best taglines.

4. In this section, the inclusion of other information of the film's impact, including a predominant section on the cult following.

That's it. I'm fine with the information you've presented. I object to your argumentative presentation of the information. Atropos 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that. I would rather leave the "Different set of Jaws" thing out because I find that reference to be completely unnoteworthy, but I wouldn't feel compelled to delete it. Kww 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but as long as thats all it says about it (rather than this bull about how notable it is), I'll be happy. Atropos 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I was going to propose a consolidation of sections anyway. --Gimme danger 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the notability is not bull and I don't see this as a compremise. In fact it is the same thing you did the last time just before there was a lockdown of the article. The tagline section should stay as it is written right now because it has been edtied by more than one person and has been correctly cited. You just want to win. Well I have edited down as Far as I am willing to go that is why there is a dispute. I have done a great deal of work to get this to some satisfactory conclusion but you just want things your way. Several people here have tried to stay within Wiki Policy. You have been very unwilling to do so. --Amadscientist 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise was already made

As you fully know the section has been changed several times. A new consensus is now being attempted for what section as re-written. what you propose is that we revert to your last version. There is no arguementative writing. The section was Wikified by a member of the Project page, Musical Theatre. This is the version on the article right now. If you think I did it your against it. Your idea is really simply return the section to your version. --Amadscientist 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps his version of the article was the best so far? Kww 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course not! I would never have edited in a version I thought everyone could live with. Atropos 22:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually you made a mistake by attempting to add more about the cult following which was removed and placed in it's own page. We really don't need to add it back. And frankly you two are NOT acting in good faith at all. You both are using sarcasm and talking down. Both of which are not particularly nice either. Did I make a mistake in apologising for the Nazi reference? --Amadscientist 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I moved the section; I didn't add it. Atropos 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is what might work for everyone

This film has had a very interesting advertisng campaign. There are other historic points of interest including the Fox executives who pulled the original television advertisements because they used the red lips and it said the words, "Twentieth Century Fox". This can be cited from the Bill Henkin book.

I think this would make more since and speak directly to the film itself:

Advertising Controversy and Impact

The original advertising campaign for screen and television was pulled by Twentieth Century Fox Executives in the very early stage. They objected strongly to the use of the red lipsticked lips uttering the words Twentieth Century Fox.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  The original poster was also changed late into 1975 with the popularity of other more mainstream films. "A different set of Jaws" refers to the film Jaws (film), the iconic 1975 film. The tagline is listed among the "Great Film Taglines."[8] and has been associated with Rocky Horror for three decades. Another tagline, "Don't Dream It, Be It", also a song from the film, was used in an advertising campaign for Fredericks of Hollywood and has found its way into the English language in a variety of ways, including rap music.[9]

My thinking here is...by making the emphases on the Advertising and not just the taglines it is more relavent. I use "IMPACT" as it has relevance and is what part of the section is about. It is also a good compremise to what Atropos added.

I removed this sentance; "Several taglines from film are notable for their parodies of important pieces of popular culture which, in turn, became famous when the film acheived a large following. The best-known of these,"

That sentance may be pushing . Then we make a seperate section entirely for the National Film Registry. We do not need to mention the cult following further than it already has been. It is not relative to the film itself and has a entire page already.--Amadscientist 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Progress, how sweet it is. Personally I like the idea of an "Impact" section encompassing all cultural fallout from the film including the fan response/cult following and advertising; that follows the general trend in good movie articles and prevents a whole bunch of small sections without any clear unifying idea from popping up (ie. Taglines and National Film Archive). If the section gets long enough, we could add subsections like taglines or advertising. --Gimme danger 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We just need to hear from Atropos and Kww to see if this works for them. I believe Ssilvers would probably go along with it as well. --Amadscientist 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course If they wish not to comment and choose silence, by the 23rd we can take that as agreement...I guess. --Amadscientist 01:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Replace the last line with something more along the lines of "Don't Dream It, Be It", a refrain from "Rose Tint My World", has not only been used as a tagline for the movie, but was used in an advertising campaign for Fredericks of Hollywood and has found its way into the English language in a variety of ways, including rap music.[9] One of my objections (and it seems to me that Atropos shares it) is that that line isn't primarily a tagline, it's primarily part of the lyrics. Kww 01:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Gimme danger 01:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this as well.--Amadscientist 01:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Advertising controversy does not fit with impact. They're not connected at all. They should be seperate sections.
2. "and has been associated with Rocky Horror for three decades." is unsourcable. Remove.
3. Include other cultural impact (like the cult section currently in "Critical and Fan Response," which should be retitled "Reception").

I don't like even the mention of DDI;BI as a tagline, but I'll accept it because we've had this stupid stupid stupid argument for so long. These three additional changes will please me. Atropos 03:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

None of those last 3 work for me at all. --Amadscientist 22:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the advertising, it's controvercies and it's impact. They are connected.

The line you say is unsourceable WAS SOURCED in the memorable taglines citation that states the year it started.

You want the meaning of the section to change to fit your opinion. It is not going to happen. Your attitude is this is an arguement it is not. It is a dispute. I have attempted to work in good faith while you have continued to talk down to me and my efforts. However you are now standing alone on this issue of yours while the rest of us seem to have agreed on the section. --Amadscientist 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As to 1: The advertising controversy is not connected to the film's impact. At all. They're very clearly different topics. Why doesn't this work for you?

As to 2: What? That's not a source. At all. So the tagline was used when the film first came out. That does not mean that it has been associated with the film for decades. Unless you can find some acceptable source saying that (1) this tagline is associated with the film in the mind of the author or the public zeitgeist or something and (2) it has been that way for decades, you do not have a source. The fact that the tagline was used decades ago does not mean that it "has been associated with Rocky Horror for three decades.""

You are right. I want the section to look like how I want it to look. And I've already made huge concessions to you and your stupid stupid stupid opinion held only by you. This is driving me insane. Atropos 00:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down, step back and look at this in a more nuetral manner. I don't even think that it is a question that they Tagline as stated has been associated with the film for thirty years. The poster is still in use and has actualy won out over other various posters and taglines that have been used including "DDI,BI". You coninue to say I am the only one of this opinion which is clearly NOT true. I am beginning to have some suspicions about your intent for this article. What is going on here? Why do you alone keep this up? Are you just angry that a consensus is being formed in a direction you are not pleased with? Are you saying you refuse to live with the agreements made by others? What is the deal here? --Amadscientist 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And by the way the Impact is what the advertising has had. It is relative to the film. --Amadscientist 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand his point. If you (Amadscientist) weren't around, I would rather not have the section in at all. I've just laid out a version that I won't feel compelled to delete, because it is clear that you will not rest until some version of it is included. I'm too old and tired to fight the fight. Maybe Atropos has more stamina than I do. Kww 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well unlike Atropos, you are working with me and others (as I really am not the only one who feels the section, which stood the entire time....and I didn't add it, should remain in some way.) to find a section that you can live with. That is't wrong. I have been editing this articke for about a year. Should I not return.... you can be sure I am dead. It's not a matter of my being here but of other past editors as well. Just because a couple of people feel it isn't notable enough to remain is also not the point. The point is to allow a full consensus. I guess that is something that will never be fully understood. I do not make the rules here.....I just follow them. --Amadscientist 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the section we can all live with

Advertising Controversy and Impact

The original advertising campaign for screen and television was pulled by Twentieth Century Fox executives in the very early stage. They objected strongly to the use of the red lipsticked lips uttering the words Twentieth Century Fox.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  The original poster was also changed late into 1975 with the popularity of other more mainstream films. "A different set of Jaws" refers to the film Jaws (film), the iconic 1975 film. The tagline is listed among the "Great Film Taglines."[8] and has been associated with Rocky Horror for three decades. "Don't Dream It, Be It", a refrain from "Rose Tint My World", has not only been used as a tagline for the movie, but was used in an advertising campaign for Fredericks of Hollywood and has found its way into the English language in a variety of ways, including rap music.[9]--Amadscientist 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I noticed That in both the stage show and film "Don't dream it, Be it" is listed as a seperate song title and not just a refrain from Rose Tint My World on Wikipedia. Then again it is not listed seperately on Amazon.com for the Soundtrack. We do have a Rocky Horror Music expert that edits here perhaps he could add input and cite a source but for now I tend to agree with Kww, and perhaps that is something that needs correcting in the article as well. --Amadscientist 04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorporate the information about National Film Registry?

The article doesn't necessarily need an entire section about the National Film Registry. It could be incorparated at the very top. Something like this;

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 comedy musical horror film, based on the British musical stage production The Rocky Horror Show, with screenplay by Richard O'Brien and Jim Sharman. The film features Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon and Barry Bostwick. The film is considered as a cult classic, and a midnight movie. In December 2005, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington added The Rocky Horror Picture Show to the National Film Registry, a list that contains only 450 films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 01:56, Jun 20, 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Gimme danger 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To do list after "Protection" Ends

• Replace Tagline and Film Registry section with Advertising controversy and impact

• Incorporate film rgistry information with introduction section with corrected list number (450 not 475)

• Correct music list ("Don't Dream it, Be it" and "Wild and Untamed things" are not listed as seperate numbers)

--Amadscientist 07:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My tracklists show "Rose Tint My World" as the title for the whole floorshow section. What references do you have that show "Don't Dream it, Be It" as a separate number? Kww 13:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is what number 3 means. You brought it to my attention in your line about "DDI,BI" being a refrain. That appears to be correct in all other sources. We just need to change the List In WikiPedia. --Amadscientist 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Attack article with spell-checker. When is the ban lifted anyway? --Gimme danger 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the 23rd it says. How do you use "Spellchecker" on the page? I could REALLY use that! --Amadscientist 11:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My computer automatically spellchecks anything in a writable application. So when I edit Wikipedia it underlines all the misspelled or weird words in the article, even ones I haven't written myself. It drives me nuts. Cutting and pasting into a word document and then spellchecking is what I did before I had this computer. --Gimme danger 12:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection ends in a few hours...are we ready to edit in good faith

In just a few hours full protection of this article will expire. It is my hope that we are ready to add a section that everyone can live with. It may not be what everyone wants. It certainly isn't everything I want, but compremise has been made and a real attempt to satisfy all current objections has been attempted in good faith. I believe to come to full consensus we all most give as well as take. I know that I have given up many aspects of what I originaly wanted, but without sources there is no arguement that they should not be added. As for what citations are there I have made an honest attempt, on my own, to provide what I believe are good sources. There are many editors from the fan base that have added information in the past that are rumors or original research. It is sad that so much effort has been deleted. The article is several years old and yet has only had citations added in the past few weeks. Out of fear of stepping on toes I hesitated in changing sections that have had so much work put into them, however I know many that are reading this agree that proper sourcing is necessary for Wikipedia. There is a great deal of information that many people wish to include as well as information others wish to exclude. How we handle this in the future is what counts. Whether we can all edit as a consensus or continue edit warring is up to evryone envolved including myself. --Amadscientist 07:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Informal Help

It has been requested on my talkpage by Amadscientist that I help to resolve this dispute. Currently, it seems that things have simmered down, but anyone who wishes for my help can say so here (if you think that outside help still applies). If you think you do need help, but do not want it from me, please place the dispute on the Mediation Cabal Case Page or on Third Opinion, the first steps in dispute resolution. Cheers, Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what we do if, after all the work that has been done to creat a section most people can live with, it still does not satisfy Atropos and he continues to demand changes to fit his opinion and his desired version. Although it seems as though things have simmerd down it is due in large part to the non linear way we have been commenting. Atropos is still not happy and requesting changes om items that have been cited. He seem one sided to me. I worked to come to an agreement with others envolved here, but we can't all have everything we want. --Amadscientist 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are at least as guilty of that as Atropos, and have forced your changes in basically under threat of a never-ending arbitration and dispute resolution cycle. Editing that way takes all the joy out of it for me. Most of us put up with that kind of thing for a while, and then fade out. When we see that the editor that started it all has lost interest in the article, we go back to the article and take the disputed material out. In the meantime, the stuff you are forcing in is not so offensive that I feel compelled to rip it out immediately. Keep in mind that Atropos opinion pretty much represents mine as well, and I am unhappy that you saw fit to take the article hostage in order to get your way. Kww 20:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you there on the threat of a never-ending cycle. It's unfortunate that it turned out this way. I get a little sinking feeling every time this page comes up on my watchlist.--Gimme danger 21:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) If that was a no (which I believe it was) I strongly suggest seeking out some sort of outisde dispute resolution. There is no way everyone will be satisfied with this continual talkpage argument, and if this debate continues his way, as Kww said, there never will be an end to this. Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So....dispute resolution is just a threat of a never ending cycle? All the work we did for compromise was just giving me what is thought to be what I want. It comes down to this? I am the one holding the article hostage?

I asked for help as it was offered on Arknascar44 talk page. I found it when I joined the Film Project last night (actualy it was afterwards when I went to check on another page I edit and he had done some spelling corrections). I believed attempting a third party envolvement would help, but it apears this to is seen as a continuation of a fight. So where does that leave us? Obviousely everything we agreed on was a sham, and is thrown completely out the window. It almost seems like I am being asked to give up my side of the dispute just because the the dipute itself is tiring and irritating. So do we just throw Wikipedia Policy out and start edit warring all over again? I know one thing for sure. I have made attempts to satisfy others. But as I understand it now, it was seen as just attempting to to continue the debate "my way". What exactly is it that each of us want? --Amadscientist 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Has this edit war escalated to the point of needing 3^rd party administrative intervention? Discussion determines consensus, which is the basis of all article improvement. If no ones likes any one version, there are 2 options:

1. Leave out the disputed material, or
2. Not discuss the material, engage in an edit war and have the page protected again.

If any of you are like me, you like to edit things of which you are fond. So unless you aren't like me and don't like having fun while editing and want the page protected again, either by an uninvolved party or myself personally, I think a bit of discussion is feasible. Another thing, due to the very tense tone of this discussion, I am going to re-protect the page because said tone makes me fear that I may have to protect again or block someone for 3RR, which I don't want to do. Sorry if I myself sound abrasive in this situation, but this makes me speculate and fear what may happen. Regards, « ANIMUM » 22:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the version proposed now is one that I won't feel compelled to delete. That said, the thing that seems lost on some is that dispute resolution is not a normal part of the Wikipedia edit cycle. Usually, when three editors remove text that one editor reinserts, that editor folds, or, at the very least, keeps trying new versions until people stop deleting his contribution. Kww 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted several versions. Removed parts and cited sources. One person is not happy that it is included at all.

And I disagree Kww, you argue that majority rules. That leaves no room for discussion or consensus. That seems lost on some as well. Three editors did not simply remove the section. It was discussed that if sources could be cited it could remain. Those sources were cast aside by one editor even after others stated they felt that they were legitimate citations. --Amadscientist 23:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If we leave out the disputed material....doesn't that just hand a decision to one side? --Amadscientist 23:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if you agree with this version (Kww), and unless you want the rv war cycle to continue, I implore you to reach a consensus on this page. If you worked hard on something like Amadscientist did and changed it to your ( your = everyone involved ) whims, no one liked it and people kept deleting it, wouldn't you want to reach a consensus to have the material you worked on inserted (albeit in a different form) onto the page? « ANIMUM » 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that amadscientist will ever agree that that advertising and taglines of the movie are unnoteworthy and, so I don't think a true consensus is ever reachable. Beyond my agreement not to delete it in its proposed form, I don't think I can go much further. I think we need to take some work to get Atropos to calm down a little, but I understand his attitude. I've had my work on this article deleted, been accused of ignorance and malice, and told that I am not following Wikipedia policy when I think that is exactly what I am doing. It is easy to get really infuriated by that kind of thing. This revert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rocky_Horror_Picture_Show&diff=137828970&oldid=137821451) still torques me off when I think about it. Kww 03:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of infuriating, I have been contributing to this article for several months. I've added the Production section, the Costume section, moved the cult following to it's own page, completely re-written the plot section that had become VERY convoluted and hard to read. I have been endeavoring to create other pages to cover this film in the most exacting detail I can. Then suddenly I to am being accused of ignorance and malice, and that I to am not following Wikipedia policy. It's not as if there isn't enough wrong to go around. You know... we could continue to argue over old issues of time, effort as well as reverts and edits...the simple fact is the discussion here was never about what everyone wanted or thought.....it began as a directive from Atropos that stated why he planned to continue to delete the section. It didn't matter what anyone else thought. There was no other reason than his own opinion and quoting wiki style guidelines incorrectly or at least quoting the just the part that backed his arguement. When I brought up what it goes on to say the section was deleted by a different editor who asked me to cite sources to back up my assertion. Then Atropos, when asked what he thought a consensus was said "I call those links consensus" refering to the style guidlines which were miss-quoted.

I then disputed it's removal untill I could research the citations. (the citations on this article, by the way, are almost all citations I made from my research) I jumped the gun at that time, requesting Wiki admin weigh in on the subject and recieved this comment from Atropos - "... admins are not in any real position of authority. Things are decided by consensus and an admin's opinion is worth no more than any users. As I said above, consensus is clearly against you and the inclusion of these taglines." He believes as do others that just because three days had passed and it appeared that there was a majority against it that that constituted a consensus. My god do you have any idea how long people discuss things on this page before they touch the article. Most of the editors in this dispute are new to the page and are, of course, welcome here....but if they are going to come in and take it over demanding that it reflect their opinion NO MATTER WHAT there is obviously going to be a problem.

Statements that declare this or that is not notable are clearly opinion and are difficult to impossible to cite so it became my resopnsibility to prove my point by finding sources. I did (and will look for even more later). I also changed the section so significantly that, starting from that point, we were looking for a new consensus. I read these policies over and over again. I believe many here (not all) have no clue what consensus truely means or that we are looking for a new consensus different from the original dispute and that nothing is "unworthy of discussion" unless it is vandalism or blatently false or untrue! Sure there is enough frustration to go around. Yes, peoples work got deleted and changed.....that's the point of letting the public edit the article. If you don't like the way the article looks, it will change soon enough, but continueing to delete the same thing over and over again without a true consensus or discussion is what started this.

One last point I would like to make, It's not like I didn't listen to Atropos, I made the article less "Listy" from his suggestion. I removed the cast list from his suggestion. It was doubled, as it is also listed in the info box. I also removed the international ratings that seemed unneccesary for the English version. No objection, so silence to the action is a consensus. (according to wiki policy) I just can't get the other editors to understand that there was no silence to the deletion of the tagline section, and I did everything I could to satisfy Atropos and the other editors, yet they still say I am in the wrong. --Amadscientist 11:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Kww, so do you agree not to delete the proposed text anymore? « ANIMUM » 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I already agreed to that. I won't promise that I won't lobby for its removal six months from now, though. Kww 15:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Heck, you can LOBBY for its removal now. That's what the talk page is for. You just can't delete something and expect no one to question or return it afterwards. There are many other editors that visit here. I adopted this page long ago. I have removed long well written sections from the article because they were incorrect and without citation. If you feel you have a good enough reason state your case. I just know I, as well as many others, won't stand idly by while anyone just says "that's not noteworthy" without some further debate and discussion. That would be forcing an opinion. If you can't back up the assertion and the other person does....I would think you would at least admit that. The definition of "Noteworthy" is "Deserving notice or attention". You mention that the advertising was not noteworthy, yet I find references to that Fox board meeting that demanded the removal of the lips from the TV campaign in several places including at least one book. It has been brought up on documenteries and discussed by many people. It is clearly "Noteworthy". There are other points, but you get my drift. --Amadscientist 22:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving things forwards

I've looked at the last 20 or so edits to this page and read this talkpage. I still have no clear idea what you are in dispute about other than that it concerns taglines and perhaps the notability thereof. It seems a good idea to have a quiet discussion. Could those involved perhaps briefly outline what they perceive to be the problem and what their prefered solution is? Perhaps if everyone discusses the contentious issues a compromise can be reached? WjBscribe 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Amadscientist's perception of the problem

As I see it, the problem is opinion, verses sourced references. It started pretty rocky (no pun intended) with accusastions all around of violation of Wikipedia guidlines. Then quickly escalated to deletions and reverts, followed by re-writes which were followed by critisism. One may not be able to change opinion, but should be able to prove validity. The original problem seemed to be inclusion of the taglines list. It was written in prose to adhere to wiki policy, and many parts were droped. It was then re-written, but this time by a different editor from the Project Musical Theatre to Wikify it. The section was then changed again in a way that completely excluded all the information that was in dispute by one of the original editors of the opinion that the section was un-noteworthy. I then re-added the section and added citations which were quickly critisized. Then full protection was granted for edit warring. That was followed by further accusations of time wasting, and holding the article hostage. I wish I had a solution but all attempts that I have made for compromise have fallen through. Above is a version re-written with what I thought was approval from nearly all. The above section is NOT exactly what others wanted, but is Not exactly what I wanted either. Maybe it can still work. --Amadscientist 03:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I give up

Do whatever you want with the article, Amadscientist. I've been away for a few days and had some time to reflect, and arguing with an idiot is not my idea of a good time. Have a ball, I'm taking this off my watchlist. Atropos 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)