Talk:Zombieland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Marketing

The Zombieland website has an unusual feature, if you click on the "about" link you get brought to this very wikipedia article, with a floating sidebar from the zombieland website superimposed. Haven't found a source that mentioned anything about it yet unfortunately. I've never seen Wikipedia used by a film like this before, they may even be the first to use this trick but I need to more to establish notability and find suitable sources.

What I have found (and added to the External Links) is that a deliberate effort was made to provide games and toys and gain interest from social networking sites such as Facebook and twitter.

In the writing section I linked to an article from the Boston globe where Harrelson and Eisenberg are interviewed as part of a publicity tour. They article only briefly mentions them being "in Austin, Texas, one night and, the next, found them here [in Boston] at a local college fest’s costumed "zombie crawl" for a screening at the Boston Common". A publicity tour is worth at least a line if I can find other sources and come back this and create a Marketing section. -- Horkana (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, about the Wikipedia bit. I love when Wikipedia gets respect like that.

As for a Marketing section, yes, do what you can in order to create one. The more complete this article feels, the better it will seem and actually be. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Predictably an editor remove the links to all but the main Official site, leaving them here for now until such time as I can find marketing reviews. Might be forced to accumulate smaller references to marketing from more generic reviews of the film -- Horkana (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Zombieland.com official website
  • Zombieland.net official website
  • Zombieland/Archive 2 on Twitter

There is no need for a Twitter link. Is there any serious expectation that this will provide unique value to our readers? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDB References

Anyone have a reference that states "IMDB is a weak source" as I am curious why so many references get deleted with this in the tag.

Thank you, Bigcats lair (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that on the yearly film articles, IMDb is not accepted as a source for release dates, mainly because anyone with an IMDbPro account can update information; thus, it is as valid as Wikipedian Original Research =P.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 05:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of content any logged in user (not just pro users) can add to IMDB. It is better than no source at all but only marginally. A bit of google magic turned up this Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb, enjoy. -- Horkana (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's true in some cases. One can update plot synopsis whenever. To correct mistakes though, unpaid users have to submit the change and have it be approved. But for such things as release dates, I don't think I'm capable of altering them with my account. I think what I was referring to were the paid-only privileges, which are often the most closely-associated details on a page for any given movie. Those facts are generally the ones people try to cite--specifically release dates when adding films to the (year)-in-film pages. Thanks for that link though!--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 01:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Extra s or no extra s for the name Columbus?

Resolved

Should we go for the extra s at the end of the name Columbus or not? What do I mean? Well, for example, when we say, "Columbus's rules." Should we leave it at that? Or title it without the extra s, as "Columbus' rules" instead?

For some reason, most American people see it as bad grammar when there is an extra s in these type of cases...most likely due to what we were taught in school; this was seen and discussed countless times at the Britney Spears article. The extra s continues to win out with that article, however, and serves as an example for that type of formatting.

I will add a link to an old discussion about this extra s matter, from my talk page archive. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely the most obvious example would be Bridget Jones's Diary. And the MOS favours the addition as the first option. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fervently behind the "extra 's'". (And completely agree with Darrenhusted. Glancing over MOS, it seems to more actively support that method for singular nouns, with the requirement that one ensures it is practiced consistently throughout an article--which we've done.) I'm a recent graduate, and in our modern-day teaching, some of the older teachers were still accustomed to no 's'; but I proposed the simple example of my name:

• James's movie collection

vs.

• James' movie collection

(And some people, because they fail, will write Jame's--hence the need to stop such chaos.)

For singular nouns (including, most of all, people), it occurred to them how ridiculous it was to sound out "James movie collection" as opposed to "James-es movie collection". It simply sounds better/more proper with the additional 's'. My senior English teacher, however, recently out of college himself, completely agreed with me and had been taught about the variations. And he taught us what I've agreed with all along: that it's the proper way. And the primary MLA Guide's guideline is to use 's' after all singular nouns ending in 's'. Ergo, I think we should follow the MLA modern guideline in conjunction with how the phrase is properly spoken =).--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 19:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I currently cannot find the discussion I had with MrMarmite about the Britney Spears matter, but the debate can still be witnessed as ongoing on his talk page...as editors keep confronting him about it. Just a year or two ago, I was for a single s....because of what I was taught in school. Perhaps, most American teachers simply do not teach us about cases in which the extra s is acceptable. Either way, I am now for it. Because of this, I was the one who originally added the extra s consistently throughout this article.

Cinemaniac, excellent explanation. You have given a great little lesson here, which I will link to any time this comes up. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, Flyer =). Sorry I delayed my reply to you. I simply didn't want to give an ungrateful response, but I appreciate it. Especially since I figured I was loquacious and nobody'd read the entire mini-lesson, haha. I hope it comes in handy in the future and glad to know you've been swayed to the good side.

I'm glad nobody brought up Oxford commas. Don't even get me started (well, if it's an issue and all...).--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 01:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely need the trailing S. Language experts are pretty unanimous that if there are exceptions for this at all then they're purely historical (Jesus and Moses basically). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, because those names in particular are also polysyllabic 's' sounds. And a third 's' would lead to clumsy enunciation. Columbus and James are monosyllabic; hence, it's appropriate.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 01:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then this is a settled issue. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not see how this issue is resolved. There are no references in this debate. What language experts are unanimous?!? It is absurd to take "James' vs. James's" and think that it should then be taken as "Jame's" as Cinemaniac has stated. Also how can you use Wiki MOS for a reference when this same person took out a Wiki reference about Emma Stone's real name (Krista, not Krysta) in the movie saying you can't use Wiki as a reference? You can have this listed as "resolved" in your minds if it makes you feel better though. H&K, Bigcats lair (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is absurd to write "Jame's," but this whole s battle can lead people to make mistakes like that. Also, there is a difference between referring to a Wikipedia guideline or policy and actually using Wikipedia as a formatted reference for something such as a name of a film character. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That was precisely my point. Bigcats, your phrasing confused me--almost as if you were insinuating I was condoning it. What I was alluding to was a mistake that numerous nitwits made during my schooling days (mostly other students, but actually twice by teachers, neither of whom taught English thankfully). I believe it was caused by the madness of being told to leave the 's' off, but their subconscious telling them to add it on. And ultimately, they just misplaced it and mucked up grammar even further. The extra 's' simply avoids such nonsense.

And Wikipedian policy is appropriate in debates and in edits or edit reversions. It is not, however, a source with which to supplement into citations.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 01:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we maybe cut down the number "Columbus's" in the article? Perhaps retitle the section heading to just "The Rules" for starters? Enjoy the little things and no attachments attachments are much Tallahassee's later adopted by Columbus for example. -- Horkana (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reducing the number of "Columbi" in the article is a good way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigcats lair (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Great rewriting Horkana!Bigcats lair (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. I'd like to have gone further and pretty much removed them all but in the cases I left it seemed like it would make the phrasing more awkward, so I've left them for now but might try again later. Now if only I could get people to stop using phrases that specifically American or British English when perfectly good neutral more international phrases are available. -- Horkana (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The film is set in the US, by people from the US, about US place names and funded by a film company based in the US. There is no need for neutral phrases, the whole thing should be written with American English. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no problem with American English phrasing be used on an American article.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether there is a "problem" with it or not, if Americanisms can be avoided easily then that's a sensible thing to do. I don't insert egrecious Britishisms into articles on British subjects for precisely this reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not about American vs. British spelling. As has been stated earlier, using the extra s is considered better formatting; this is why Wikipedia prefers it. Plenty of Americans prefer that use. I am okay with cutting down how much the extra s is used, but the reason I had changed "The rules" title to "Columbus's rules" early on is because I remember reading something on Wikipedia about avoiding the word "The" at the beginning in headings unless the word "The" is a part of the name or phrase. I read this when I was a new editor here (two years ago), and have followed it ever since. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the rules are credited as Columbus's rules, even with Tallahassee's rules thrown in. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We could try just "Rules" or some different section heading, if you have any suggestions? I'm just trying to do what we are supposed to by finding something resembling a consensus and not unnecessarily piss people off. -- Horkana (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about just titling it "Rules" as well (that is an immediate thought, of course), but I went with "Columbus's rules" instead (obviously). Something seems lacking about it just being titled "Rules," but you could try that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cast section

I want the Cast section to mostly be prose, as is discussed at Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)#Casting section with that article. Because I feel that a Cast section here at Wikipedia should mostly be prose, even if also bullet-point, unless there is not enough information to take it beyond the typical bullet-point style, I do not feel that we need a Cast section and then a section titled Casting as well. This is why I merged this article's recent Casting section into the Cast section. It needs to be expanded, as in getting as much information about the other actors being cast as their characters as we have for Woody Harrelson. I am going for what I did with the Jennifer's Body Cast section (though I still want more information for that). But having a bullet-point Cast section with prose for this article, like the Transformers (film) article has, is also fine with me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for the bulleted list with decent blocks of prose. A few of the articles mention Abigail Breslin doing her own shooting and rather enjoy it, might be suitable to include as background to her role (think it was in an interview with Emma Stone). The Boston.com article mentions how Eisenberg has auditioned for lots of really terrible roles but being very lucky with the how well the films he got cast in turned out. -- Horkana (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: I do not feel that the information about the hometowns being character names should be in the Cast section. To me, that is something that belongs in the Themes section. I feel that we should definitely keep the Themes section, instead of having some lone section titled Columbus's rules. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Themes is a section suggested by the Wikipedia Project film guidelines and also think is the better way to present that information. Darrenhusted made the change but with the two of us preferring the other way and guidelines that should be enough to call consensus. One of the script articles mentioned the television spec script had as a theme the girls repeatedly conning the guys over and over, but in the film they steal the vehicle just twice. Does the ongoing quest for Twinkies; zombie kill of the week; or the painting of #3 on both of the vehicles constitute a theme? Trying to think of the best way to bring back all the things deleted Darrenhusted in his bid to shorten the Plot section. -- Horkana (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the ongoing quest for Twinkies and zombie kill of the week definitely qualify as themes. I am not as sure about the painting of #3 on both of the vehicles. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, does zombie kill of the week happen more than once? I only remember it happening once. The title of it suggests it will continue to happen, but... Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about characters using place needs needs a reference, any interview with the director or actors which mentions it would be enough, but at the moment it is original research. If GA or FA is where you're aiming then that section cannot stand on its own. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is already well supported by the film itself, explained by Tallahassee and it is the implementation of Rule 5. You can reuse any of the existing references in the writing section if you feel additional sources are necessary.

I suppose zombie kill of the week only happens once, we'd need more script background to know if it was intended to be a running theme. The number #3 is repeated twice, as is the girls stealing their vehicle twice, hard to expect much more repetition of a theme in just one film than that, the script do at least mention the girls repeatedly conning the guys was intended to be a running theme in the television series. -- Horkana (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The mention in the previous section of rule 5 does not mean that the place names have a reference. Rule 5 doesn't have a reference, the section about the names is OR based on that rule. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Rule 5 comes from Talahassee's dialog just as he and Columbus meet and (I'm paraphrasing) he says to avoid attachments they will use placenames rather than their real names. The overall concept is explained by the dialog. If there is some specific part of the current wording that you feel is not supported by the film then it should only need a small rephrase to what the film does support. -- Horkana (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All the rules come from dialogue, it doesn't stop them needing a ref. Find a ref which gives the quote and gives an interpretation that says that is why they have place names, otherwise it is OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with interpreting the scipt this way in absense of a secondary source. Unless there's solid secondary sourcing linking the "no attachments" rule to the "place names" thing then it should be removed. Personally it seems absurd that Rule 5 would include something which Columbus was quite happy to break the minute he met Tallahassee. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the promotional videos offered "find yourself a badass" as an alternative rule, not featured in the film. You could argue travelling with Tallahassee and benefiting from his protection is separate from getting attached. Even so Columbus also breaks the "Don't be a hero rule" and fails to follow his rule about checking the back seat.

If the film was already out on DVD we'd be able to quote the dialog directly where Talahassee says to use placenames instead of real names and make the section clearer. Rather than risk editors deleting chunks of the article I've taken out the suggestion that Rule 5 is why they use place names maybe the dialog is not as clear about it as I recall. This leaves only the fact that they do use placenames, which is such a flat statement there shouldn't be any reasonable objection. Perhaps that is what the citation request was really about? It wasn't clear before but hopefully only the inference that the names directly connect to rule 5 was the only problem there. -- Horkana (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would personally rather wait until someone else wrote about the DVD commentary and then sourced to that rather than going with primary sources for plot stuff: that tends to act as a natural balance on adding too much trivia to articles, as DVD commentary is basically designed to be value-added trivia. But the only contentious part was the idea that "rule 5" applies to "no names" when a) this is never explicitly stated and b) Columbus was about to give his real name to Tallahassee the minute he showed up even though "rule 5" was formed well before that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Krista"

Is it really necessary to refer to Wichita as "Wichita/Krista" everywhere? Her real name is a throwaway at the end of the movie. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One mention is enough, the Plot seem likes the best place for it. (Putting a details like that in the Cast section is just an unnecessary and obnoxious spoiler.) I note you spell the name "Krista" and I've come around to that as the most likely spelling but since whoever edited the article first wrote "Krysta" I'm sticking with it until we get a verifiable source. Hunting through articles which reviewed the script and good some good stuff but nothing yet to answer the question of how they spell Krysta. -- Horkana (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As an FYI, Emma Stone's Wiki article even says it is spelled KRISTA. Bigcats lair (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. Krista Stone is the mother of Emma Stone, and the spelling Krista is probably more common than Krysta which is why I said I have come around to it being the more likely spelling. Without a citation I am only willing to support the precedent set by the spelling that was there already (apparently first, I haven't checked all the way back). -- Horkana (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your only basis for reverting "Krista" was that you think maybe "Krysta" might have been in the article first? Google shows 169,000 hits for "Krysta" versus 2,000,000 hits for "Krista". Not scientific, or conclusive, but 13:1 seems enough for "Krista" to be the default spelling until an authoritative source pops up. Let's not even think about Christa! (2,050,000 hits) - JeffJonez (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Precedent wins for lack of a better source, that's just fundamental. Google searches are an extremely crude metric, I was thinking more along the lines of a most popular names list, but I think it is too late now, Darren has given us a suitable and definitive solution. We wait for the DVD, or another fair and reliable source. -- Horkana (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait for the DVD, turn on the subtitles, read the spelling. Until then leave it alone. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But I don't wanna leave it alone... waaa =)Bigcats lair (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If precedent determines the spelling, then it's "Christa". Here's the diff of what appears to be the original inclusion of the name. A few hours later, it was changed to Krista - JeffJonez (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point and I won't stop you changing to Christa but one spellings is a good as the other (or as bad). At this stage it seems like we will not get any kind of definitive answer until the DVD is released and we can look at the subtitles. -- Horkana (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's such a minor point, I'd prefer that the name not be spelled at all until we see it in print. - JeffJonez (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed from the article. I'm fine with that. Deletions can be counter productive but but the discussion here should serve as a suitable reminder to add it back later if anyone wishes to do so. In retrospect we should have deleted it sooner. -- Horkana (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I deleted it because of all this uncertainty. As stated, it can be added back once all of this is cleared up. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead

Is there any correlation between this movie and Left 4 Dead? The storylines are almost exactly the same, this movie even steals the "don't be a hero" bit from L4D and both the game and the movie take elements from 28 Days Later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doshindude (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[From the edit summary of an attempted deletion of this section] ask that question on a forum -- Mjrmtg

Not familiar with the Left 4 Dead series, couldn't tell you. If you do find an article (reference source) that sees similarities, then post it here, maybe we can find an appropriate way to mention it in the article. -- Horkana (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? --Mjrmtg (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Without a source, this thread is pure conjecture, and subject to deletion. Tick tock. - JeffJonez (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be mean to new users. It is easier to say nothing, it is not difficult to make a small effort to be polite. A new user is not very likely to understand why someone deleted what they thought was a reasonable question, and even less likely to know to look back at the history (could be very far back) to see the comment. It is unlikely there is anything more than a coincidental connection between the film Zombieland and the Left 4 Dead video game but you never know, the reader might find a credible source that says otherwise, the writers could be fans of the game or something. There is no excuse to delete other peoples comments (and the archive bot will tidy away this section in due course, sooner if we stop adding more comments). -- Horkana (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Free what?

I corrected an occurrence of "free reign" to "free rein". The correction was reverted, on the grounds that "free reign" appeared in the reference cited.

I've re-corrected it. If it'd appeared inside of quotation marks in the article, it would've been acceptable, though with a [sic] to show that WP editors know one homophone from another, even if the source of the quote doesn't. However, since it doesn't occur within a quotation, it should be spelt correctly.

--Ammodramus (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was correct. See: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/free-rein-or-free-reign/ Bigcats lair (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rules

Rule 9, Nine Iron - Apples to Apples

In response to the above unsigned comment please see previous discussions on the rules. The consensus was not to include rules not mentioned in the film. -- Horkana (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rule 23, Horkana is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.45 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why editor is complaining at me, not my idea to exclude the additional rules. If I wanted to include them I'd write more about on the various social marketing efforts the film makers used and include the expanded rules and promotional videos as part of that. -- Horkana (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of rules

Right now the rules are just presented in a context-free list. Do any reliable secondary sources discuss what they actually mean? This would be a helpful addition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Head off on foot vs. Walk

So we can put this to rest. Which gives more description to the scene?

The sisters con them into handing over their weapons and steal their vehicle. The two men head off on foot and soon find a Hummer H2 truck loaded with weapons.

OR

The sisters con them into handing over their weapons and steal their vehicle. The two men walk and soon find a Hummer H2 truck loaded with weapons.

Thanks, Bigcats lair (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not say; The sisters pull a confidence trick causing the them to hand over all their weapons, they then relieve them of their vehicle. The two men trudge onwards until they find a Hummer H2 truck brimming with munitions and firearms? Because why use four words when one will do. But then you guessed that because I was the one who reverted you. "They head off on foot", as opposed to crawling? As opposed to a hand stand, and heading off on hand? Foot is redundant, you could say "they head off and find a Hummer H2" but why use two words when one will do? Darrenhusted (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly the sentence is already a little clunky because Hummer H2 must be properly explained as a vehicle/truck but something about having the two phrases "head off" and "on foot" right beside each other felt let an odd juxtaposition, and I felt the earlier wording was simpler. I wouldn't be opposed to you trying to rephrase again or suggesting another wording, and I might try myself if I thought there was a way I could squeeze in more details (like him painting the number 3 on the door). -- Horkana (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)