User talk:Bignole/Archive 10

Jurassic Park IV

Fine. But there are hundreds of lesser profile projects with Wiki pages, yet the biggest Universal Pictures film of 2008 is neglected.

A good example is High School Musical 3. The second one only just broadcast last week, but the page for the third one has been up since February.

And FYI, I posted a source that said JPIV's casting has begun. Bloody-Disgusting.com (part of the Crave Online network, including ComingSoon.net) is one of the most reliable sources in the industry.

The project is confirmed. Laura Dern is starring in it. It is being filmed this year is Hawaii. It is being released next year.

That warrants its own page.

Jason Voorhees

Meh... still not crazy about the colour of the infobox. Why can't it just be white? Paul730 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind something dark like black or grey, but Jason just doesn't strike me as a multicoloured kind of guy. I get what you were trying to do with the red, but along with the blue letters, it looked too Supermanish. Paul730 00:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's better. Looks a little licac-y but I don't mind it. As for Supes... go Marvel! Paul730 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Superman is a pussy. (oh, how I love pissing off DC fanboys) Rogue would strip him of his powers, Wolverine would cut all his arms and legs off, and then Dark Phoenix would obliterate every atom in his puny body.  :) Paul730 01:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix is fire and life incarnate. She is... the Phoenix! Besides, if that didn't work, Scarlet Witch could just turn him into a carrot or something. Paul730 01:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Still say that carrot plan could work. ;) My main issue with Supes isn't his powers; it's his personality. I've already had this discussion with User: Zythe, but I just see Superman as a Mary Sue. He's too perfect. It's boring. I like the X-Men and Buffy; heroes who have a genuine dark side and are real. One of my favourite superheroes is the ever-underated Cyclops because he's so flawed (and I love his costume). Paul730 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have to respect your passion for the character. And I'll admit that I came this close to buying a Smallville boxset a few years ago, before deciding not to. I'm sure the DC universe is good in it's own way, but I'm just so much more attracted to the Marvel universe. It's more gritty and political; it feels like the real world only with these strange mutants and "superheroes" running rampage through it. Paul730 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, congratulations on the GA status of Jason Voorhees. It really is an impressive character article, and it should be used as an example for other character articles. I was wondering your stance, though... when is it most appropriate for a film character to have his own article? I wonder because I found a lot of WP:WAF-violating character articles that I've linked at Underworld (series), even for characters that appear in only one film. Obviously, Jason Voorhees is completely acceptable, along with horror icons -- just wondering, in terms of cinematically unique characters, what should the criteria be to warrant the creation of a film character's article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Should I reverse my proposed deletion of Selene, then? I don't believe there's anything to salvage, and I don't know if it's worth keeping available. If some passionate Underworld fan comes by, the article could be recreated with some real-world context. I'm not interested enough in Underworld to do that myself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ha. Yes, Bignole, I highly suspected that the intended word was "psychologically" and not the word "psychology" for this edit...[1]...without the possessive letter s to the name Jason that you moved later on, of course, but then I wasn't sure if the word psychology wasn't the intended word after all, as in "Jason's psychology"...even though it sounded a little off. Anyway, I love the awesome work that you guys have done and are doing to this article. It's really a great article, although you, of course, already knew/know that. Flyer22 00:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Alientraveller 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

Hey I just want to apology's for what we fought about in the smallville group can you forgive me Supermike

IMDb

So here we make our stand. Too bad we never polished that anti-IMDb subpage; couldn't have expected an actual proposal to arise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville - Robinepowell's changes

I've reverted back to a version of yours from earlier this morning - there are too many small, non-beneficial changes mixed in with the occasional good tweak to bother sifting through every single one. Please let me know if I've inadvertently undone something of yours. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffy

Hi, I wanted to ask your advice about something. You say to list the original movie as Buffy's first appearance, even though it's non-canon, and I agree with you. However, what should I put for the characters whose first appearance was the Unaired Buffy pilot? It's quite a bit different to the actual first episode of the series, featuring an entirely different actress as Willow, but was never actually aired on TV or released to the public (you can see it on youtube but). Also, there are characters who appeared in the pilot, who don't appear in the first episode, but then appear later in the series played by the same actors. So putting Harmony's first appearance as Episode 2 isn't entirely true, because she was originally in the pilot, even though the pilot isn't canon... I'm confused. Paul730 23:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. :) Love the heading to your comment too; I didn't think you were all that much of a Buffy fan. Paul730 23:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you maybe take a look at the Andrew Van De Kamp article and tell me what you think of it? It's an FA fictional character article and I like the short and simple layout of it (character history, characterization, cultural impact). I was thinking of using it as a partial basis for the Buffy article, but I was wondering about the plot summary. Andrew's is rather long and detailed, far more so than the one in my Buffy sandbox. I know excessive in-universe detail is generally frowned upon, but as you said, Jason's story is much simpler than that of a TV character so it's not the ideal basis. I don't want to sell Buffy short, and with all the trivia and relationships section gone, the article's looking pretty short. Paul730 04:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just merged the character history and appearances section in my sandbox, creating an "expanded universe" section encompassing noncanon material. I know you say canonical issues are irrelevent in an encylopedia, but I don't think it hurts to point out the controversy, especially considering that Whedon has commented on it in several interviews. Anything wrong with this, or is it a step in the right direction? I'm not sure where to mention her cameos in Angel, currently they're hovering around the season 4 section but it looks quite crap. Paul730 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Action figures! Thank you, I knew there was something I'd forgotten about.  :) Actually, Buffy doesn't appear in all expanded universe material. There's books about other Slayers in which she doesnt appear; does that mean the sentence should stay the same? I'm relucant to inlcude the cartoon in with the main show because it was never released to the public, and I tried to separate the old comics and the Season 8 ones because Joss Whedon makes such a heavy distinction between them. With this in mind, do you still think I should do what you say? I've said this before, but Buffy is not like Jason or Superman, who have been created over several decades by many writers; Buffy has one clear writer who guides the series and it seems odd to include expanded universe stuff in with the canon stuff. I was kinda using Darth Vader as a loose basis, layout wise. Paul730 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't it be Appearances>Movie>Television>Comic continuation>Expanded universe like it already is? Do you mean the EU stuff should be an independant heading rather than a subsection? The Season 8 is not expanded universe; it has more in common with the television series than it does with the original comics and is marketed as such. I get that you think it should be OOU, but lumping all the comic together when they have so little in common with each other seems strange, at least to me. The old series was just monster-of-the-week stuff set in between episodes, whereas this is a proper independant story arc. As for the cartoon, it was never released ever and can't even be seen on youtube, so is it worth mentioning at all? I only included it as a note following the video games. If you see anything glaringly wrong with the page, please feel free to change it; if I disagree I'll take it up with you. Paul730 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Treating non-canon material like it's a leper" lol... slight exaggeration I think. Believe it or not, I am actually an inclusionist when it comes to non-canon stuff. I think they have some interesting stories to offer and count many of the old comics in my own "personal" Buffy canon. In fact, when I started editing Wiki, I got told off for not making a distinction between the two. I just keep whining about it coz it's such an issue for other people that I want the article to be clear. Sorry to have gone on about it so much, I'll try to impliment your advice. :) PS, I watched F13 Part 5 last night and quite enjoyed it. People are too hard on it, it's a decent film and it continues the theme of parental vengeance from the first one, if not as well. It's much less depressing than Part 7. Paul730 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol... you're such a bitch (meant as a compliment - nice people are boring). As for Jason masks, I like the one in 3 but not the face underneath, like the one in 4, 5 isn't great, don't like 6 (Jason looks fat in that one), love 7, 8 looks good haven't seen it in detail, 9 was horrendous I hate it so much, 10 was great :P, and FvJ was great. Don't even get me started on Michael's masks - they were all crap except the first two (esp 5 and H20), but the new one looks okay. In fact, the remake looks excellent. I enjoy remakes, I look at them the same way I do the Ultimate comics; they're not a bastardisation, they're a fresh take on something you love, even if the original will always be better in the end. Paul730 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My God, you are way too hard on the Jason X mask. How does having a little pointy nose make it regurgitated fecal matter? (nice imagery there BTW!) Jason X is NOT BAD. Talking about the Halloween series; Halloween 1 is my favourite movie of all time, 2 feels like a F13 movie (forgetable characters, OTT violence), 3 is dismissed completely out of existence, 4 is good coz of Jamie but I hate how they killed Laurie, 5 is feeble, 6 is crap but I love Tommy (mainly coz of the cute actor playing him), H20 is awesome - Laurie is a well-developed and likable character, I love empowered women as you might have guessed, Resurrection is crap (They killed Laurie again?), remakes looks great and I like that they cast Danielle Harris as Annie. Overall, I hate the Halloween series. The constant retconning and terrible continuity just destroyed it for me. Lets hope the new one is better. (BTW, this might surprise you, but I preferred the Texas Chain Saw remake to the original) Paul730 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Regurgitated fecal matter"? That's disgusting, Bigs. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And so is the mask in Jason X.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the original Texas. I looks like someone just murdered a bunch of bad actors out in the country and filmed it on a home video. I get that the whole snuff-movie feel of it was deliberate, but storywise I just didn't like it. I know what you mean about the slow pace of Halloween - I watched it and Elm St with my friend and he was like "Elm St was amazing but why'd we have to sit through that other one?" BTW, what was the reason Michael came after Laurie in H20? I can't remember there being a reason other than the usual. Oh, and Jamie was only sixteen in H6, the Thorn impregnated her, it wasn't her choice. Paul730 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen Hellraiser 1. It was okay, I enjoyed watching it, but it didn't leave as much of an impact on me as The Big Three. Pinhead seemed cool enough, although my friend Sian (who's a massive horror buff) says he gets Freddy-ised in the later ones. I hate Freddy so much. He's good in the first one coz he's this unseen presence, but in FvJ... I went into FvJ rooting for Freddy coz I love Nightmare 1, and by the end I was like "Go Jason!". The best thing about the Nightmare franchise is Nancy. She's the perfect heroine in a horror film; she's intelligent, likable, aware of what's going on around her and not afraid to fight it no matter the cost. I love Nancy and Laurie, why did they have to kill them? :( Paul730 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen New Nightmare. :( I want to though, it looks good and has Nancy/Heather in it. I really enjoyed Nightmare 3, but I can't remember much of it. I agree with you 100% about music, all my favourite movies/shows have great music; Halloween, Terminator (how awesome does Sarah Connor look?), Buffy & Angel, Doctor Who, the X-Men movies. My favourite episode of Buffy is the finale "Chosen" because the music makes it feel so unbelievably epic. Just look at |this trailer to see. Paul730 02:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Music is crucial. I get all teared up everytime I hear the Terminator music, and Buffy and Angel's deaths are all about the music. Oh, and the Legend of Zelda theme tune. That gets me all excited to save the world from Ganon. :) BTW, do you know if they're making any more sequels or remakes in the F13 series? I would love to see Crystal Lake Chronicles get made. Just think, it would be like a Friday the 13th movie, only with good characters! I generally prefer TV shows to films because there's less budget and more character development. And as for Sarah's wet hair... well, she must be doing something right to catch Spike and Angel. Paul730 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My best friend was obsessed with it since forever, and I was always like "Oh wow, a cheerleader kicking people, that's exciting". Then one day he made me borrow his boxsets and I thought I might as well give it a chance. I soon realised that the point of the show wasn't the superpowers or the demons, it was the people, and all the other stuff was just window dressing. The first time I realised I was hooked was the episode where Xander became evil, and I was "Noooo! But he's Xander!" Then I cried when Angel died. It's just so good. All the stuff which people criticize like "Riley is crap" and "Season 6 is too dark" is completely justifiable because I understand what the writers were trying to do. If they hadn't broke up Buffy and Angel, it would have got stale, if they hadn't made Season 6 dark, Buffy's death would've felt like a cheap trick. There were so many moments where it could have jumped the shark but didn't, it's the most perfect show ever! Paul730 02:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've angered the Buffy fan! Buffy may have been dropped by the network (big deal, the stupid networks don't know what's good for them) but it came back. Then, after it ended, it came back again. Buffy, like it's heroine, will come back no matter how many times it dies because the fans love it so much. Buffy is studied as a work of art because it's so perfect. From what I've heard, Smallville has already jumped the shark because the writers have run out of ideas, so just introduce as many DC characters they can think of. Also, Buffy has Angel, Spike, and Xander; Tom Welling doesn't come close to that. :P Paul730 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that the flying bit was pretty cool (I've actually seen that ep on TV, what a coincidence). However, it cannot beat Buffy's self-sacrificing swandive into the portal in "The Gift". Paul730 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The bit with the missile was cool; the funeral probably would be sad but since I'm not emotionally invested in the character, it didn't have much effect on me, I'm afraid. If you want something simultaneously happy and sad then watch this; it's sad because Tara dies in the next episode. Nobody is allowed to be happy in the Buffyverse. Paul730 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The heat vision was okay, nothing Cyclops can't do better (even though I know he doesn't have heat vision yadda yadda). Anyway, your theory about Spike is flawed. Yes, there are two vampires with souls, but their characters and storylines were completely different. Saying that Spike and Buffy is just a rehash is ridiculous; their relationship dynamic is completely different. Buffy and Angel were angsty teenager lovers, Buffy and Spike were two confused adults who hated each other but needed each other regardless I don't see how soulful Spike could be classed as jumping the shark at all. Personally, I found Spuffy far more entertaining and realistic than Bangel, and one of the highlights of the show. Oh, and I'm aware that Spike played Braniac, he's much better looking than the comic version I must say. And Seth Green's career could kick Baldie's career any day of the week. (The fact that you're resorting to network opinions and actor's resumes, which are poor indicators of a show's actual quality, to prove your point shows how much you're grasping at staws to prove Smallville's superiority :P ) And one-eyed Xander is cute, especially since he conveniently lost all of Nicky Brendon's weight and turned into James Bond in the new comics. Paul730 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-sacrifice? Screw giving back a necklace, Buffy killed the love of her life to save the world! She plunged a sword into his heart and the sent him to hell for all eternity (or four episodes, whatever) because she had to. Also, what about the episode of Angel where Angel becomes human but then reverses it because he knows he hasn't earned it yet? Watch this and tell me he isn't as much a self-sacrificing hero as farm-boy! And then there's time he gave up his son so he could have a happier life, or when Cordelia became part-demon so she could continue helping Angel. Paul730 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you totally miss the point of a vampire-with-a-soul. Angel doesn't kill people, Angelus kills people, Angel looks for the good in people; he was the only one who tried to get through to Faith and he succeeded, and now Faith is on the side of good. Buffy and Cordelia wanted him to kill Faith, but he refused because he had to save her soul. I'm starting to think you're a little bigotted towards poor vampires. ;) Also, Clark was born with his abilities he didn't ask for them. Clark only wants to be normal, but can't because he can never escape his destiny. Sound familiar? That's Buffy in a nutshell. I think this argument is getting silly now because the characters actually share many similar traits; Buffy was probably based a little on Superman, and Smallville was probably based a little on Buffy. Let's just agree that they're both good shows (even though Buffy's better :P ). Paul730 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, interesting connection. I would even go as far to say that Buffy and Clark might get along quite well, but I think she's more of Batman gal what with the black leather and the darkness. And it's interesting you say that Buffy wouldn't be accepted, because that's exactly what's happening right now. She's at war with the human race. The government hate her and the Slayers because they're a "master race" and they think they're more of threat than the demons themselves. Very X-Men. As for Supes; aren't aliens pretty much part of society in the DC universe? Paul730 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the series will end with him literally in spandex? And what's wrong with Smallville Aquaman, I thought he was one of the better DC introductions. I heard that Heroes (which I haven't seen yet but the first ep is on again tonight) makes Smallville look a bit old hat these days. What's your response to that? Paul730 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the Aquaman show set in the same universe as Smallville? Lol, just remembered that Aquaman gave Captain Hero fish rot - play safe kids! How come Batman isn't in Smallville? I really do respect Smallville; I always thought that a similar show for X-Men would have amazing. Kind of like X-Men Evolution, only... better. Paul730 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, Heroes is soooo good! I've only seen the first two episodes, but I definitely recommend it. It's so intriqing what with the bizarre, unplained powers and random connections between the characters. Kind of like Lost, only... good. Paul730 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations in lead sections

Back on May 2, you made a statement on the film discussion page about requiring or not requiring citations in lead sections. Your opinion is needed on Wikipedia talk:Lead section where this is currently being debated in numerous sections, but most recently in Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Citations_in_the_lead_-_drafts, where a draft proposal is being formulated for inclusion in the style guideline. —Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice comments. I hope you'll stay and discuss, as I find your perspective essential to the discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 19:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I think it is important to have it in the lead guideline, as this topic keeps coming up and needs to be clarified somewhere. —Viriditas | Talk 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you find some time to take a look at this version and modify it to meet your criticism, or if you choose not to, make recommendations on the talk page? You seem to have more experience with this topic than anyone else. —Viriditas | Talk 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to continue if you dislike the topic; it does get quite heated and some editors do not understand the concept of collaboration, making it difficult to contribute to policy and guideline development. I just thought you had something to say on the matter as I remember your May discussion on the Film project talk page. Don't do anything that makes you unhappy. —Viriditas | Talk 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! —Viriditas | Talk 21:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your latest comment. You have a unique talent for cutting through thick swaths of forested discussions with your machete-sharp keyboard and getting down to brass tacks. This is exactly why I asked you to share your views. —Viriditas | Talk 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you need help on Jason Voorhees, just let me know. —Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I already replied there. Keep fighting the good fight. Alientraveller 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've responded and hopefully have avoided sounding like I'm regurgitating the discussion too much. It'll be interesting to see where the discussion heads. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

IE

I use Internet Unexplored, it's unreadable for me. I've implemented a better stopgap measure. Matthew 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

Yeah, I've seen it, so I'm having a bit more fun with the article. I enjoyed it, I really liked Sam and Mikaela and I loved the Autobots. They're characters who should have a sitcom made. My only real problem was during the fights, the camera was shakey, though fortunately I could tell all the robots apart. The special effects are great: only Devastator/Brawl looked fake, as his eyes looked nothing like the other robots. It's good fun, it may get weaker on repeat viewings but me and my brother and cousin really had fun. The masturbation bit went right over their heads, but all the gags were excellent. But the sequel should be darker: maybe grimmer humour if they want. Alientraveller 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my view is that while the acting, script and special effects were superb, Bay shot his scenes, but didn't put much effort into shooting that script. The dialogue got a little hard to hear at times, and I've noted the camerawork during the action, so the colours got a bit wishy-washy. But I'll be in-line for the sequels: maybe Bay will get a better cameraman. Alientraveller 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, I adored Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox's performances. John Turturro, Anthony Anderson, Kevin Dunn and Julie White were hilarious. I wouldn't mind if Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson came back, but I'd rather the Transformers meet many more humans of their travels. What was interesting was for a big fan like me, the humans felt quite alien, what with Optimus' narration and the intercutting of all the stories. Also, Starscream really just cameoed, but I honestly was yelling mentally when he stood there as Megatron cornered Sam, "Shoot him! Just frickin' shoot him!" Alientraveller 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was annoyed that Starscream just sat there like a big chicken: though swatting the other jets was amazing. I definitely imagine Transformers 2 will have a war between Starscream and Soundwave trying for Decepticon leadership, while the latter tries to resurrect Megatron. For me, Transformers was about Optimus accepting Earth as his new home, and Sam and Bumblebee's relationship was the epitome of that. Earth will have hell to pay in the sequel... And a quick note on Jazz: he just... died. Nothing more, nothing less. But I'd rather him die than Ratchet or Ironhide... maybe Ironhide could sacrifice himself protecting the humans in future. Anyway, the future is limitless. Roll on Grimlock! Alientraveller 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

didnt know where on your page to put a comment like that... everything is in its own category, telling your boy seemed easier. Robkehr 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that guy's personal comment was idiotic... he could've found answers to half of his questions in the article itself. It's amazing that people think they can just write a diatribe on any Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I did put out the PR onto the main request page, but that is a lot like fishing; I don't know if they'll bite. Alientraveller 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Character list

I just created an article entitled List of characters in Friday the 13th and merged Alice and Tommy into it. It's pretty shit at the moment, but hey, I only just made it so give it time to evolve. What other characters do you think I should include? I suggest Crazy Ralph, Ginny, Chris, Tina, the main character from VIII (whatever their name is), Jessica and Steven, and Rowan. I'm on the the fence over whether to include Trish, Pam, the cyborg from Jason X, and Lori. What do you think? Oh, and did I create the page properly and everything, because I'm not sure? Paul730

I added some more characters and info to this page, but I think that's about as much as I can do because my memory of later Jason movies is kind of limited (I had to check websites just to remember some character's names). This page badly needs some consistency when it comes to infoboxes; personally I think they're kind of unnecessay in pages like this and just take up too much space. It also needs some pictures of characters, I think we should use Thom Mathews as the main Tommy picture. Sorry if it seems kind of repetitive, I found myself writing "X is the final girl" and "she must fight for her life" quite a lot. :) Paul730 20:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Future film

I've requested a merge for A Christmas Carol (2009 film), would you mind reiterating your support for the merge? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think WP:NF suffices for future film articles? I'm just thinking that a film like Spider-Man 4 would receive a lot of development and casting information before filming even begins. I mean, an article like The Lovely Bones (film) is pretty much set to go. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Take a look at User:Erik/Sandbox. I'm thinking about creating a template that would outline it like I showed Ernest here: User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld#RE:Hello Abu the Bad. Can you think of any fairly simple templates to copy from? Template:Film is a bit too complicated... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this would be one in which you could fill out the unique attributes of the fair use rationale. The licensing template is only part of it, obviously, and with fair-use hounds amok, the ten-point criteria of both standard and unique attributes would back an image best. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Future films guidelines

I'd love it if you contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) regarding unreleased films, as I know you have an interest. I tried to implement this today on the page (see the edit history) but unfortunately was reverted. I hope that you'll be sympathetic to my edits, but please join us either way! :) Girolamo Savonarola 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I probably need a breather, and I'm frustrated by what I perceive (as you seem to as well) to be a lack of clear objection to the content itself. Girolamo Savonarola 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

found it

i guess i shouldve looked at your user page instead of poking around your discussion page... Robkehr 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i guess, but i was just lookin out. Robkehr 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Connor

No I didn't, thanks for fixing it! Matthew 09:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Smallville

I don't feel that page is a duplicate of the pages you listed. Maybe the recurring characters are and could be deleted. But the main character summarys aren't duplicates. Some of the main characters only have breif infornmation on the normal pages eg Lois Lane, compared to Characters of Smallville#Lois_Lane. The characters of smallville provides summarys for the main characters, which is only fair since there are many pages for the minor and one-time-only characters. Russell >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 13:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville (season 1)

Replied on the talk page of the article. Giggy _U^CP 03:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Good work! Giggy _U^CP 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

seems pertinent

Can I get your thoughts and input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager)? I'm not asking you to participate in the debate one way or another (or at all); but as it seems you've been very involved with WP:EPISODE and I wanted to hear your thoughts/opinions. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees article

My one big suggestion would be to break up some of your sentences. You are like me, I tend to take a sentence out to the paragraph length. Which I think is cool, a teacher told me it is the sign of an active mind, but as far as Wikipedia goes, they like tight concise sentences. You have the info down, I would just try to tighten it up. Overall, great article! Jmm6f488 05:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mad Men

I've been working on this for a few days now. It's a new show, and it's only just about to air its second episode tonight, so there's yet to be a whole lot of information to cite. Anyway, take a look at it and tell me what you think when you get the chance. Thanks, Cliff smith 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think an LOE was necessary, but someone already started one unfortunately. Cliff smith 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give that a shot. Sounds like a good idea. Cliff smith 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

TDK

Have you tried the coordinates on the website? I have no idea if I'm looking them up wrong, but this is what I get. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The anon. on TDK's talk said San Diego (which I expected the coordinates to show), so I figure I must've screwed it up. Just keeping the general discussion off the talk page, obviously... and I am not looking forward to handling these newcomers that are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Viral marketing campaigns are the bane of my Wikipedian existence these days... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I give up on the edit war on this stupid viral site for now... let the clock tick down, and we'll see what happens then. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Shit... the website just posted a clue for others to follow; we need page protection, pronto. (On the other hand, I'm impressed with the cleverness of the campaign, which seems likely to be genuine.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

From what the page first displayed, there needs to be collaboration between the people on the ground at that location (where the coordinates pointed) and people using the computer. Maybe there's a plane that flies over with a banner having a keyword that needs to be entered... crazy stuff! Imagine if it's a Joker-esque plane! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BOF. First clue is "inside joke". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Second: "jack the ripper". I have to admit, this is cool as hell. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Third: "mountebank", Fourth: "crime of passion" —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm checking here. Their chat room is full -- 25 people, and there's 230 people on the forums. It's definitely keeping busy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you unable to access the viral website, or BOF, or both? 5th is "head games". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

6th is vallandigham. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you type my correction above? I couldn't remember what I entered, sorry... Flash takes a while to process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm stuck at the Dr. Death one right now. I keep refreshing the BOF thread. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You can skip to here, but no one but one person seems to know what the answer to Dr. Death is, and he's the one that found the knife image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you access here? They have fans walking around with Joker faces painted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Break

The card checkpoint is "unforgivable", the one about the father/son weapon is "baseball bat". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here. There were a couple in between, but the guy seems bad at updating the rest of us. I think the kidnap one was "larceny". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The pass for the one above is "reaper". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Teaser trailer! And damned if I can't view it, my PC doesn't have QT! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

Can I suggest easing up on the tone of your comments? It would help reduce hostility in the current discussion about the Joker image, and some existing comments (by either side) do not seem to help maintain the atmosphere. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration; the editor does not appear very amicable from what he's said so far, about both the image and information regarding the viral site. Do take a breather, though. His perspective is a liberal one in regard to fair use, and sadly his case is supported by articles containing images of insufficient rationale. I'll see if I can lead discussion another way, since you two are probably too much at each other's throats right now to really resolve anything. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I had the opposite of a "Wikipedia editors worthy of my respect" list, he would be on it. Dude was pretty intolerant, even after I imparted some advice to him on his talk page about handling these matters. Actually... I'm going to include him as a satisfied customer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, of course. In any case, even with the image's inclusion, it's highly likely that it would be replaced pretty soon, as opposed to the IMAX and Batpod images. That kind of longevity reflects the weak stance of the image, in my opinion, if it can't stick around "forever". I think that's how image use should be perceived, when possible -- will it be appropriate in the article into the far future? The problem is that the new image suffers from recentism, and it seems somewhat fanboy-ish to display the newest image. That's probably happened at Iron Man (film), now that I think of it... but yeah, images should stand the test of time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he won't be sticking around. It's too bad, I saw a little Ace in him. (Just kidding.) I hate to say it, but I'm glad that's the case. I'd rather welcome junior editors that are willing to understand our perspectives and also explore others' as well. Even Annoynmous seems to be a little more friendly. So, I guess it's time to get back to editing ErikBigNolePedia. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Annoynmous has impressed me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Excitement

I don't think you have to worry... it seems to be the editor's general style. (It actually appears to me as if he/she was ticked off that the move failed, and got in a snit. Just my humble opinion, of course.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cast

I see the dilemma here. My first impression was that they seemed best as separate sections, but reading the content more closely, I can see the possibility to merge. How about something formatted similarly to Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast, with the overall casting details in the first paragraph(s), then have a subsection with bulleted entries for each primary character and their casting background? After that, a seasonal-type subsection ("Recurring characters"?) in which the various roles can be shown in prose. It's just a preliminary thought; let me know if there's any holes in this particular approach, and I'll see if I can suggest something else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to break up the "Recurring guests" information into season-based paragraphs, though I'm not sure about using "See also"-type templates. It seems that they would litter the subsection somewhat, considering these templates usually appear right below a section heading. What about something like making sure you link to each season's page at the beginning of each paragraph? Such as, "In [[Season 1]], John Doe was introduced..." It would look a little better for the prose layout. Another possibility would be to do simple table layout in which you can have a row with a square-ish cell on the left with the link to the season page, and on the right, a long rectangular cell containing information about recurring guests for that season. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best to fill out each bulleted entry with specific information. It's easier for a reader to look up, and leaving the list of cast and characters as it is seems incomplete. People might write in unnecessarily detailed backstories -- best to provide content there to fill that gap, I would suggest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Sigh. "A little like"?! I hate to make the AfD long in the tooth with my arguments, but I just don't understand the mindset that an editor can originally contribute anything in detail as long as it remains factual. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, he's right about this. The wording suggests "rare occasions", though, so I've continued with other arguments. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm just going to take this off my watchlist... these AfDs of fictional topics give me too much sorrow. I've made my arguments anyway, and it doesn't seem likely that they'd be heeded. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

TDK

Added section of critical commentary discussing the differences between the look of Ledger's Joker and all the traditional look of the character. --CmdrClow 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

freddy's nightmare

Sorry I couldn't finish the page quick enough, I was falsely temporarly banned because I use a library computerWikimindless 03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah true, What was wrong with the Jason Voorhes page? didn't it have a good article nomination?Wikimindless 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

buy the way, you talk about a user called "twenty two", why does that story sound familiar?Wikimindless 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm actually going to Germany (I don't know why I linked that) tommorow. I will work on the page and tell you when I am finished so you can link it up to other pages. I'll message you in a week hopefullyWikimindless 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

?

Some random questions:

• Should years be linked? I think I might have asked you this before, but I can't remember... :/
• There is now another character in the Buffy comics who uses the name Buffy Summers. (She's a decoy Slayer) She has only appeared in one ish and is unlikely to ever reappear (being dead and all) but she is the focus of her very own story (The Chain (Buffy comic)). There is also another, off-panel Fake-Buffy. How should this be dealt with in the Buffy article? Perhaps a section on "Other versions" which also encompasses brief info on Buffybot and alternate universe Buffy? Or something completely different?
• I believe (haven't done the research yet though) that Sarah Michelle Gellar has won awards for playing Buffy. Should this go in the popular culture section? Or perhaps a "critical reception" or "cultural impact" section? I may buy some of these books if I can find them and include info from them in the article.
• When citing DVD special features, should you put the year the film/show came out/aired or the year the DVD came out?
• What fictional character are you most like?

Paul730 07:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How come the Fake-Buffy is unimportant? Other pages such as Green Goblin have mention of other characters using the same identity. TBH, I only remembered Buffybot and Alt-Buffy when I was writing my message to you, hadn't even considered them before. I'm not hugely concerned about this, just thought it would be an interesting addition to the article.

Lol, I am now going to picture you as Superman. Paul730 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where would I work in the info on Other Buffies? I don't think they warrant an entire section. And if they do, where would that section go in the article? I feel kinda sorry for Fake-Buffy - the issue was all about how her death would never be remembered because she was just a decoy, and now that's totally true. Lol.

I just included info on what fictional characters I am on my user page. There's at least three sociopaths there... that's not good, right? Paul730 12:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What? That's a fairly extreme analogy! I added some stuff about the other Buffies, but it's just in-universe stuff right now. You're right, there are bigger priorities in the article, but it was an interesting new idea. Paul730 13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you were joking, lol. It's just you and Alien compared yourselves to nice people like the Doctor or Superman and then I'm Eric Cartman. I'll make you eat your parents Although judging from your "Satisfied Customer" section (which is very amusing I must say), you must get on some people's tits as well. ;) Paul730 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi sorry it took me so long to reply - my piece of shit computer crashed and I had to restart and then re-connect to the interet... whatever. Here's my original message:

Obviously everyone is unique, but you can share traits with or identify with certain characters. From what I've seen, the Batman website was angry at Erik for the fact that their website was an unreliable source, which is hardly his fault personally. I wouldn't worry about it. You're a damn good Wikipedia editor and because other people don't hold themselves to your standard, they get annoyed. I just took a Buffyverse test and scored 85% Giles and 78% Spike and Willow. I am least like Buffy and Angel. Leave a link to the test you took and I'll take it too. Paul730 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it seems like all you do at work is edit Wikipedia. Random question but do you read Runaways? Paul730 14:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you liked Marvel? Is that just the films? I cannot express how much you should get Runaways. Get the little digest books. Trust me, I was wary of buying it but noone ever regrets it, it's such a quality series because it focuses entirely on character development rather than gimmicks like costumes and powers. Best superhero series ever! It's even written by Joss Whedon now, and it's creator is now writing Buffy. Paul730 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What Marvel heroes do you like? My favourites are on my user page, as you've probably seen, but I think my current favourite is Cyclops. Right now, I like how the Marvel Universe is being freshened up with younger heroes like the Runaways, Young Avengers and New X-Men. I just hope they stick around permanently - the New X-Men are far better than some of the classic characters like Angel. Paul730 14:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never really connected with the Hulk. I like Ultimate Hulk, but I've never been interested in the mainstream version. I think I'll get World War Hulk though, cause that does look good. I used to love Wolverine but he's been so overexposed (FIVE books at the same time?) that the character has become meaningless. I like him, but he needs to find a home instead of being diluted across every X-title. The same is kind of true for Buffy's Spike, if I'm honest. I like Ultimate Spider-Man, but not the mainstream version, and I hate Tobey Maguire. Human Torch is great, but the mainstream version is so much more likable than Chris Evans. (He's hot, but God, what an asshole). Paul730 16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, the fight scenes are good and the CGI is amazing, but Maquire is intolerable and the writing can be pretty cringeworthy. I'm sorry but Spider-Man is supposed to be funny and Tobey Maquire is an emo. I even heard he gets an emo fringe in Spidey 3. My vote goes to X-Men 2. X3 could have beaten it if it weren't for studio interference and Singers' defection to the dark side. Paul730 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you like Maquire? Personally I find the romantic tension between him and MJ very forced. I think Batman Begins was better than any of the Spider-Mans and I was so drunk that I only saw half of it. What about the FF films? Me and my friend laughed ourselves silly throughout those films at Jessica Alba's atempt at acting. There was a moment where we were in hysterics and she wasn't even doing anything, she was just on the screen, but just the sight of her made us laugh. The rest of the cinema must have thought we were mad, lol. Paul730 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops - put this on the wrong talk page :/ I didn't mind Daredevil. I don't hate Ben Affleck and I enjoyed the film enough to want to read the source material. FF is so bad it's good... almost. What about Sin City, now that's a damn good movie and an excellent comic book adaptation. Paul730 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, running out of comic book films that I can think of so think I'll wrap this conversation up it that's allright. Speak to you later. Paul730 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm Batman apparently. That's cool, I can live with that. That quiz only had like five questions, the Buffy one I took went on forever. Paul730 05:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're Willow! Lol, you seem to have a lot in common with opnipotent gods/godesses. Paul730 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Shadow of the Bat

BOF has mentioned Shadow of the Bat as the title for the third film under Nolan. I've created the article as a redirect; see further discussion on the redirect's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, should we redirect Shadow of the Bat and Shadow of the bat to the comic book, then? I mean, not many people would type "Batman: Shadow of the Bat" to find the specific comic book. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

In case you're wondering it was announced a lot of Gene Siskel's reviews will be avaliable online tommorow at http://www.AtTheMoviesTV.com , so you can cite it easily for the revamped Friday the 13th article. Alientraveller 08:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal Lecter

I plan to fail Hannibal Lecter, which had been nominated for GA status, but I was wondering if you'd like to critique the article instead. I can spot quite a few issues with the article, issues that won't be fixed within a week. I could do a reasonable job of the review, but seeing as how you've done a great job with Jason Voorhees, I was wondering if you could either critique the article yourself (no pressure if you don't desire to, haha) or point out some less obvious items of what a fictional character article needs to address. Right now, getting ready for work and need to make the commute this morning, so I won't get back till later this morning to accomplish this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. I've reviewed accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

I found this from June 2006. Wikipedia is not: "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business." I looked back at the current one, it's WP:NOT#DIR, #3 -- "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been up for AfD before, the argument is there, but it got kept. Go figure. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD mentioned from that one. If you put it up for AfD, make sure you cover all arguments. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack Harkness

This article is a featured article candidate and myself and User:Zythe are just trying to polish it to perfection. I am asking you to look at it and give your advice. I know there is a character biography, which is against policy, but in this case (and in the case of Spike and Angel) I would probably argue for something like this because of the complicated history the character has, pieced together by numerous flashbacks and revelations and occuring back and forth between two separate series. If not, how would you recommend handling his history/appearances instead? Paul730 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. I showed your comment to Zythe so I'm sure we'll get the problems ironed out soon (the article has already been opposed once :( ) BTW, check out the nutter I met on Kenny from South Park's talk page today. I couldn't tell if they were crazy or just taking the piss lol. Paul730 21:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I gave it another (big) update. Should I submit it to the main article space?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

Look, I know you think you're doing something innovative and amazing by reformatting entire seasons of Smallville pages, but really, it was nice to be able to go the Wikipedia page after viewing an episode to see the music list or allusions other users may have added. Now, there is no place to put screenshots, music, allusions, quotes, or anything. It's sort of sad and I really wish you would stop. --Icetitan17 22:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued. The link you gave me that supposedly outlawed inclusions of music in an episode did not say anything about including the titles of the songs in the episode, but rather the inclusion of song lyrics on pages about that song. You are making unfair assumptions that no one except yourself is capable of adding anything noteworthy to these pages; for all you know someone could have source material perfectly describing an episodic allusion, or have perfect justification for a screenshot. Smallville is not your show, nor is Wikipedia your encyclopedia. You are trying to achieve a monopolistic control of all Smallville pages, which completely undermines the mission statement of Wikipedia. You seriously need to reconsider this. As for your page detailing season 1, sometimes one would wish to go a specific episode section, not an extremely long overview of the entire season. It's no good.--Icetitan17 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued. If anyone was being lecturing or chastising, it was you. Do not patronize me just because I disagree with you. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia, but it is one like no other. I seriously doubt the Encyclopedia Brittanica would include an episode list and summary for each episode of Smallville. On a similar note, nearly every other television show has individual articles for individual episodes. Thankfully, they haven't had your "expert" attentions turned to them yet, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. If you cannot see past a word, a word like "encyclopedia", then you truly are closed-minded. Wikipedia is what it is; that is, a user-edited website. A wiki. Did you ask all the users when you did such a complete and unnecessary overhaul of an entire series enjoyed by many others besides you? Did you stop to consider that doing so would be a serious digression from similar pages? I doubt it. --Icetitan17 22:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

You have had valid opinions in the past regarding Wikipedia:Television article review process. I have now written an essay/implementation guide, and would like to know what you think. If you can suggest changes to it, please do so too.

Sincerely, G.A.S 13:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. It was exactly what I needed. I will move it to my userspace soon; you will be welcome to edit it. And I learned a new word too. Sincerely, G.A.S 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The essay is now located at User:G.A.S/Managing related non-notable articles. I have merged most of your suggestions into the essay, but will add the relevant examples at a later stage. Again, comment (or editing) will be appreciated. G.A.S 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bond 23

More future film fun at Bond 23... it's up for an AfD. Since you were part of the discussion regarding WP:NF, I figured your input would be welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Friends season 1 is up for review

• Talk:List of Friends episodes#Episode article review (Season 1)

I think we're going to need all voices! -- Jack Merridew 11:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Scroll

What about it? Paul730 16:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, wasn't aware of any of that. :/ I just nicked it from Jack's article for my sandbox and Jason coz I thought it made the page look nicer. I'll get rid of it on all three pages. Paul730 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you for your help

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for all your help with Through the Looking Glass (Lost) during the FAC. You have better eyes than anyone else I have encountered on Wikipedia. --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3

I didn't knew about this thing that you gave me on Spider-Man 3. I went to this site called superherohype.com, and it had the release date of Spider-Man 3. Then I saw your letter saying that it was on the release section of Spider-Man 3.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebloo (talk • contribs)

I swear to God, no one reads anymore... and they just add what's hot at the moment (the DVD release in this case) without a care about redundancy. All the more reason to register... heck, throw in a policy exam or two for further weeding out... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from an ol' friend

		The Superman Barnstar!!
		Hello Bignole, It's me, Charlie, long time no see eh! I don't quite remember the last time we talked or I contributed with the now amazing article of our fellow show Smallville, but I think it's been a long time ago. Anyway, all this time i've kept an eye on "the little baby" that I once took care of when it was just a couple of tiny pages all messed up, just doin' it for fun and to support one of the shows that i have enjoyed the most in my life. And let me tell you I'm quite impressed with your work Bignole, you've been working really hard and never gave up and that's kudos for you man. My job, girlfriend and other nice things in my life have kept me apart from the editing world, but I don't want to skip this moment to congratulate you for your big contribution to the Smallville universe. To honour all this years of your dedication and effort, I award you with the Superman barnstar. Congratulations again Bignole, and keep giving the Smallville fans such a nice wiki companion. --Charlie144 04:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

More Buffy ?s

I noticed you commented on Jacks powers & abilities section, and was wondering how i should deal with this on Buffy's page. It's a tricky one, because there's not much commentary on Buffy's powers (she's super strong - it kind of speaks for itself) but she does possess a few lesser known abilites like precognition etc. While it is in-universe info, I feel it is neccessary in some form because from what I hear (from friends, not a reliable source or anything), a lot of people don't even know Buffy has superpowers, they just think she's a good fighter. I know I wasn't aware of her powers when I started watching the show. Maybe the temporary powers stuff should be removed and the section could be merged into characterization? Oh, and BTW, could I reference an article about Buffy and feminism in the Buffy fan magazine as a reliable source? I met another editor who looked down on such magazines because they were written for fans as opposed to mainstream media, but I disagree. Yes, the magazine is for fans, but why should fan magazines be treated like scum, when they're still a published source? What do you think? Paul730 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that link you provided looks helpful - I'll take a more thorough look at them when I'm finished working on Jack's page. The Buffy magazine should be fine - this is the one I was talking about. Paul730 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about Jack's appearances section. See User talk:Zythe to see why, so I don't have to write it again. Paul730 01:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind. I see you've already seen it, lol. Paul730 01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

I'm pretty sure I'm right, please see the discussion on the talk page for List of Outsiders members when you have a chance. Thanks. --CmdrClow 08:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more of a question of form, he's rejecting the template used on the other two main team articles (Justice League and Teen Titans) in favor of his own, for various reasons. If you don't think you could help, could you refer me to someone who can? Thanks. --CmdrClow 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Venom?

Seriously, WTF? Avi Arad mentions Venom in an interview, and there's no follow-up question about it? This seems like piss-poor verifiability to me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The devils eyes...

Cool, it's about time Mikey got some love. What do you mean "it won't look like Jason", you mean it won't be as good coz you don't have as much source books etc? I'll try to dig some DVD special features when I can - I have two copies of the first film (the 20th aniversary and the 25th aniversary) because I'm such a geek, lol. Seem to recall something about Jamie Lee Curtis describing him as being like an artist because he admires his victims like a painting or something. Sounds like good characterisation stuff to me.

PS. I was watching the first episode of Superman: TAS and was quite impressed I must say. It was strange how a cartoon could be more enjoyable than any of the live action films. Paul730 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

From memory, I think there is info on creation and casting on one of my DVDs. Nothing major probably, just anecdotes about the mask they chose and why, how Michael was based on a person Carpenter saw in a mental hospital, and how Nick Castle was basically just a friend of John Carpenter but then they hired Tony Whatshisface to play him unmasked... I'll watch the documentary some time and leave the quotes and info on your talk page. Paul730 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You might enjoy these: Spider-Man 3 and Transformers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support; brute force seemed to work here. :-P Meh, I'm not looking forward to merging items like Deathly Hallows... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the new image - favourite pic of Myers. GMTA, clearly. Paul730 12:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

All I remember is an anecdote about how somebody on the crew went out and bought two masks - a clown and a Captain Kirk one. The clown one was okay, but when they spray-painted the Cap Kirk one white and poofed the hair up, it creeped everyone out so much that they just had to use it. BTW, how do you feel about using in-universe quotes on the page? I have one from Buffy -

“ "Do-do you think I chose to be like this? Do you have any idea how lonely it is, how dangerous? I would love to be upstairs watching TV or gossiping about boys or... God, even studying! But I have to save the world. Again. ”

that I believe sums up the character in a nutshell, but I'm hesitant to use it. Paul730 13:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What always annoyed me was that his eyes are shot out in II, but then you see them in perfect condition later on in the series. Grr. I'm watching a doc about H20 and I just hate the mask so much. I hate it I hate it I hate it. At one point it looks CGI or something (the bit where the kid from Jumanji has his hand down the garbage disposal). I'm finding good quotes from the cast and crew, but none of them directly about Myers himself, maybe they'll be good for the film page. As for images, I asked another editor who uploads screenshots to find me a picture of Buffy's death. It's a hugely important moment in the characters history - fair use? Paul730 14:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the brow thing was always my fanon explanation, although I think it was the blood going into his eyes, not the blind, as you said. :) Buffy's death in the Gift is important, because all of Season 5 leads up to it, and all of Season 6 deals with the aftermath of it. I was planning on writing a captain similar to this -

“ "The hardest thing in this world.. is to live in it" - Buffy sacrifices her life to save the world in the 100th episode of the show, an action that would have long-lasting consequences for both the character and the series. ”

Also, where are "they" fighting over images?. Being nosy, I checked Michael's talk page and the Wikiproject Horror talk page, but couldn't see any discussion. Paul730 14:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that drunken comment last night - I get overly sociable when I'm drunk and just want to say hi to everyone I know. Anyway, left some random quotes and stuff on your sandbox talk page, more coming soon. Paul730 14:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I put "various" for people, you'll have to customise it for each quote you want to use. Paul730 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael speaks in Halloween 2007! As a child, but still... BLASPHEMY!!! Lol, just kidding. The TV spots look cool though - this film seems pretty action packed (although trailers are always better than the films themselves). My friend hates the new mask, he says the old blank one looked creepier. I'm in two minds between clinging to the past and embracing the new. What do you think? I'm more annoyed about Michael's hair. Paul730 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Argh!! I just deleted everything I wrote. Oh well, as I was saying... You can't beat Jamie Lee, she's a brilliant actress and the highlight of the series by far. I know I won't like the new Laurie, but I am looking forward to Danielle Harris as Annie. Harris acted circles around the adult cast as Jamie, and even though I don't swing that way, she's really pretty these days. Unlike the F13 series, the main characters in Halloween (Laurie, Annie, Lynda, Jamie, Rachel, Tina, Tommy) are likable and you actually care if they live or die. I get the hair thing, but he's just so grubby and Sabretoothy. My main concern is that, by fleshing out Michael's personality and past, Zombie will take away from his strength as a character. Although, I suppose the beauty of remakes as opposed to sequels are, no matter what happens, they can't damage the original because it's an alternate universe. Paul730 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I probably will thoroughly enjoy all the revelations and psychology, but I dunno... Michael, like his mask, is supposed to be a blank slate, a mystery, nothingness. In the original, it was supposed to be that Michael saw Laurie randomly and saw her as a sister-figure. He just latched onto this complete stranger and targeted her for no reason - that was the scary part - he could just have easily seen you and followed you. Boiling it all down to a diagnosed mental illness or the Curse of Thorn or something just explains something which should be inexplicaple. Oh, and about Annie and Lynda, you don't have to be nice to be a likable character. They might be ditzy/selfish, but at least you remember them, which is more than can be said for the indistinguishable brats at Crystal Lake. :P Paul730 21:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why'd he go for Annie and Lynda - because he's an artist and he wanted to set it up elaborately? Because he just gets off on killing people? Because he didn't like their outfits? That's the mystery - he's unpredictable. Why kill Annie and Lynda because of the family/Thorn explanation - they weren't related to him. And come on, they were just teenagers, you can't blame them for being a little selfish. Who knows, given the chance they might have surprised you. Tina in part 5 was basically just a new Annie/Lynda and she gave her life to protect Jamie. I love characters like Cordelia Chase and Amanda Tanen - both seemingly bitchy, selfish people with hidden depth. Everyone is shades of gray. Except for Michael. :P Alice was okay, likable enough but not as strong or memorable as Laurie and Nancy. I don't know which Tommy you're talking about. I like Tommy Jarvis in part 6, but not part 5. And I agree that this new Halloween film should be going in the direction it's going. It'll be a very different film and a very different Michael, but that's okay because, like I said, it can't affect the original. Paul730 22:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Urgh, stop trying to pick holes in my favourite film. He felt attached to Laurie, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have a little fun beforehand. Michael is very patient, he didn't mind waiting to kill Laurie - it wasn't a race. Maybe he saw Annie and Lynda in a sisterly way too? I don't pretend to know what goes on in Michael's head, and I think it's creepier not to. And speaking of plot holes, why did Jason try to kill Tommy in 4 but leave the kids in 6 alone? Huh? :P

I think you're villainising Annie a little too much. I'm not saying she's blameless, but she didn't leave Lindsay in an alley with a drug-addict, she took her across the street to stay with her friend and a responsible baby-sitter. Hardly a crime which warrants death. Lynda was the comic-relief of the film. And Lynda was written for PJ Soles based on Carrie, hence the similarity. How can you wish Cordelia would bite the dust? Just because she told the truth instead of kissing everybody's ass? Buffy was basically Cordelia at one point, and look how she turned out. Cordelia is a legend and I hope to God she comes back in Angel Season 6. *Crosses fingers*

Super-speedy cuminator. Lol. Yeah, that wasn't Judith's lucky night at all, was it. Paul730 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He did look in the window. Laurie was on the phone next to the window and Tommy saw Michael standing staring at the house. Michael knew she was in there and wasn't going anywhere for a while, so he thought he'd have some fun. He was lurking around Orange Grove all night, keeping an eye on both houses. I think he just gets off on stalking them, being able to see them when they can't see him. He could have killed dozens more Haddonfield residents, but he was fixated on Laurie and her friends. (Maybe he wanted to kill her friends, so as to hurt her before he killed her???) He was setting it all up.

Ease off Annie and Lynda! They were memorable. I bet you couldn't criticise the supporting characters in all the Fridays in such detail, because they were so forgettable and insignificant. Cordelia wasn't really stuck up - she went out with Xander because she loved him even though it alienated her amongst her friends. And he was the one who threw it back in her face and left her broken hearted. Oh, and televison Buffy was once the same as Cordelia. She says so herself and flashbacks in Becoming, Part One confirm it. Cordelia was based on movie-Buffy. Angel Season 6 is comming out in a canon comic book.

I put the "eyes opening" bit there to confirm that Michael was alive at the end of the film - some gullible fool might think he was really dead. BTW, is it really necessary to put the actors names in bracketts? Paul730 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm providing motives and reason to Michael's actions, but they're just my interpretation of the character. I'm not being spoon-fed what Rob Zombie says is the psychological reason why he does this and that. Michael is a complex character, and the first film lets you decide for yourself what he's all about. And Michael was hiding behind the car on the Doyle side of the street, which implies that he was keeping an eye on Laurie. Not all supporting characters in slasher films are forgetable - Annie and Lynda aren't, the original Nightmare kids aren't, the Scream characters aren't. (And don't feed me that bullshit that Scream isn't a real horror film because it is :P).

Cordelia was a bitch in the beginning, but her character arc wouldn't have meant so much if she had been nice from the start. Her development was always in mind. Look at this moment from Season 1

Cordelia: So, are you saying she's invisible because she's so unpopular?

Buffy: That about sums it up.

Cordelia: (exhales) Bummer for her. It's awful to feel that lonely.

Buffy: Hmm. So you've read something about the feeling?

Cordelia: (stops Buffy) Hey! You think I'm never lonely because I'm so cute and popular? I can be surrounded by people and be completely alone. It's not like any of them really know me. I don't even know if they like me half the time. People just want to be in a popular zone. Sometimes when I talk, everyone's so busy agreeing with me, they don't hear a word I say.

Buffy: Well, if you feel so alone, then why do you work so hard at being popular?

Cordelia: Well, it beats being alone all by yourself.

I think that peer pressure and loneliness like that is a very human thing that a lot of people can identify with. Characters shouldn't just be good and bad, they should have layers of both. Okay, comparing Buffy to Cordelia was a bad example, but redemption is a huge theme in the Buffyverse. "Likable" characters like Willow and Xander are prone to selfishness and immaturity. Giles is a liar. Buffy is a control freak. And villians like Faith, Spike, Andrew, and Anya become self-sacrificing heroes. Even Lilah and Ethan achieve some sort of attonement before death.

Wow, this conversation is getting pretty deep, huh? Paul730 00:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm totally confused... "LOL. I like that. He's so complext that you just write you (the universal "you") own motives for his actions." - You're taking the piss out of me aren't you?  :( And okay, I'll give you the Nightmare thing, but those were totally great deaths. And Whedon is great a writing characters - I love where he's taking Cyclops at the moment.

"You think I'm never lonely because I'm so cute and popular? " - Like I said, she's still growing as a person. Besides, it's funny! Urgh, I guess you're just not a fan of bitchy humour. I bet you hate Glory, who's my all-time favourite Buffy villain. And when did I suggest you said Cordelia wasn't memorable? I was addressing the fact that you said she was stuck-up, which is true, but not in a bad way. She spices up the dialogue of the show.

I'm getting the impression you frown upon teenage sex, drinking and drug-taking? You seem very offended by Annie and Lynda's shennanigans. Paul730 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking the piss. Honestly, Americans... :P

Glory - best Big Bad ever!

Joss Whedon's X-Men - Get the TPBs if you want, it's a good run.

It's like the bed had explosive diahrea. Okay, that has to go with regurgitated fecal matter in a "List of shit-related imagery by Bignole" on your user page, lol. And yes, that was an excellent death (Tina's was scarier though).

I honestly can't believe you're still ripping into poor Lynda and Annie. Although you're train of thought in this sentence (or however you say his name, the no actor part, who gets killed in part 2..guess that solved that anyway) made me laugh. Poor Brad. Paul730 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, taking the piss isn't always as serious as that dictionary entry made it sound. Pulling your chain is a pretty fair comparison.

And...? Did you like Glory? Look at her quote list. It's unencylopedic, I know, but how can you not love this woman/hellbeast?

Tina's is scarier because of the build-up. The chase scene, which I saw as a little kid, is really extreme, and it's such a powerful first death. Freddy just smears her all over the walls like a dirty protest. And I can't blame Nancy for not wanting to give it up to Glenn - have you seen his clothes? I know it was the eighties but yeesh...

Just remembered it was Ben Tramer, not Brad. We didn't even get his name right. Paul730 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben Tramer is a beloved part of the Halloween mythology. :P Going to bed now, speak to you later. :) Paul730 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

Consensus was to keep it on the main page for now. At the moment, there are no reliable sources that confirm when the season will start, nor do we have any that confirm what the episode titles are. At the moment, there is nothing to warrant a separate article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, when the time comes to create the page, please note the other season article formats. They have changed and are no longer using the format you recently used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, my mistake, I didnt look at the main page discussion.
SoLune 14:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As my english isn't very good, I'm not sure about what the discussion page exactly tells to do, then I prefer to ask you : Can I create the 7th season's page if I respect the new conventions and if I source all the informations ?
Thanks,
SoLune 22:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

All relevant Season 7 info is on the main page. The only thing confirmed is the start date of the seventh season, mentioned in the lead paragraph of the main article. None of the titles have been reliably confirmed. Places like Kryptonsite are not considered reliable, because they are fansites. Not unless they held a one-on-one interview with someone that mentioned the titles. The same goes for the rest of the release dates, we cannot assume that they will appear exactly 1 week later. It's an easy guess, but something could change. Right now there isn't a reason to start the page, because it will be pretty bare until the season actually starts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Who talk about Kryptonsite ? Of course a fansite isn't a source, I talked about sites like IMDb which never lied until now (and I use that kind of site to write about TV series on french Wikipedia for a long time).
SoLune 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the English Wikipedia, IMDb is not considered reliable when it comes to future events and any trivia related to that event. Information is submitted by fans, just like ours. About the only info accepted on the English Wiki is filmographies for actors/actresses, directors and the like. Reason being, they attain this information from the Screen Actors Guild and the films/television series themselves. It's quite easy to verify an actor in a show or movie, all you have to do is look at the credits, thus, for simplicities purposes, IMDb can be cited for that type of information...just not in relation to future events because that cast list will be based on rumors. IMDb doesn't cite its sources for where it gets its information, nor provide sources for information submitted by fans, thus it doesn't meet the English Wiki's criteria for verifiability and reliability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know these english Wikipedia's conventions. I won't create it (but I think it's a mistake : I never saw wrong data - like wrong titles - on IMDb, I think there only source are production companies). Thank for informations.
SoLune 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not about whether they are always right or not--I'm keeping track of the season 7 information based on what Kryptonsite lists (which is where IMDb is getting their info most likely, since I haven't seen the info released in any major circuits), but we cannot use it as reliable information. Stupid rules at times, but rules nonetheless. What I'm waiting on is either an official annoucement through a major news organization (not likely to happen, as it hasn't in the past) or TV Guide to update their website with the information, which probably will not be till the episode airs...or pretty close to the airing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, your words begin to be too compliated for me. Thank anyway for tryed to explain to me.
SoLune 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cast members

Based on what I know about the characters, it seems that Chloe would be the most controversial to merge. Lionel would also be a bit controversial as well. For Whitney and Jason, though, it seems best to merge these two. Would you receive much resistance in merging the first two? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking to their Wikia pages seems to be acceptable. Hope you can put forth an understandable argument about the real-world context of these fictional characters and how the Wikia pages should cover their "biographies". I'll keep an eye out and see if I can provide another perspective for your proposal to merge. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said my piece in support of the merger. Also, I didn't really have much interest in writing up a "List of characters" for the Underworld characters. The whole incident just stemmed from my wanting to place the Untitled Underworld prequel information somewhere, leading to the creation of Underworld (series), then to the list of characters, which led to my discovery of the fancruftish fictional character articles. I probably went too far with my clean-up duties; WP:WAF violations just annoy me a great deal. So much more can be done with articles about fictional entities. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, I remember you bringing up that article some time ago. I agree with you that it's a shoddy article, and I'm not sure if the fictional character is really deserving of his own article. If he does, it shouldn't go anywhere beyond GA status (if it could even get there), based on what little OOU information is available about the character. I'd support your stance in that article's FAR, but I'd suggest reviewing the Desperate Housewives article to see what kind of editor mindset the editors have. Like was this character article the sole focus of a single editor, or did the community get behind its "improvement"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My fortune-telling skills never cease to amaze me. :) Let me know if you need any further input about the merge proposal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, might just go ahead and get my hands dirty with this one. Are there any respectable GA-class or FA-class TV character articles? Obviously, TV characters are a bit different from film characters. I swear, it feels like we're constantly working to provide examples of what's encyclopedic... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Van De Kamp

Please do not ever use FAR as a threat. If you feel an article needs to be FARed, FAR it, but do not try to frighten people with it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. But I hope your anger subsides and you become a better person one day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

TDK

Just wanted to suggest not responding to this. I don't care to get into an edit war about whether the comment should stay or not, but he shouldn't be dignified with a response. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for your assessment

• Bignole, on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, you might have seen an article that I created -- the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, but I should have come to you directly on this matter as well. I'm looking for some thoughts on this article before I nominate this article for Good Article (GA) status or Featured Article (FA) status (and before I further tidy it, of course), and I know that you will give me a great analysis of this article, if you grant my request for your assessment of it. I still need to format a few of the references to how they should be. And I need to expand the lead, it seems, though I'm not sure, at this moment, on what more to include within the lead that wouldn't be too redundant as of what is already mentioned within this article. Your thoughts on what I need to do to improve this article from where it is now will be much appreciated by me, if you will give your thoughts as to this article. I asked an editor here at Wikipedia who is noted as good at copy-editing about this article, but he hasn't responded to me (at least not yet), and all I have within its peer review is an automated peer review. Anyway, hope to talk with you later. Flyer22 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your shortened plot summary looks much better - I wasn't online last night or I'd have replied sooner. Paul730 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How to change the notability guideline

Hi Bignole. On Wikipedia_talk:Notability, you said that discussing reform on the notability discussion page wasn't a broad enough forum to affect change. What is the appropriate forum, do you think? Individual discussions with administrators? Some other discussion page? I'm not saying I want to tackle this, but I am at least curious about what the correct or most appropriate way to start to generate a consensus for change is.

Please let me know if there is already a page on 'how to get that policy you hate changed' or similar, and I just missed it ;)

-- BenBildstein 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jigsaw

I've been trying to rewrite Jigsaw Killer and thought I'd seek advice from you, seeing as you managed to rewrite Jason Voorhees to GA. I was wondering also if, when the article was starting to look good, if you could help me source the article (I don't have any of the DVDs). --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Superman Returns formatting

The Project film style guidelines Show this order for sections; Lead in, Plot, Production then Casting......--Amadscientist 02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel it should be just under the production section as per Project guidelines and you are correct it should be "Casting" and it needs expanding yes but should contain relevant actor not character information.--Amadscientist 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Club Nole. Non-smoking girls to the left, and smoking hot girls, follow me

I consider you a good guy, unworthy of being treated like that. The meatbag needed the extra helping of stern. I'll check his contributions for awhile, and if he gets like that again, I'll keep my promise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)