User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 16

VOTE FOR A 1996 and 1998 PROJECT!

A chat open to anyone. I am struggling to decide on which film to do for 1996 and 1998. Looking at 1996 in film and 1998 in film there aren't many films that remain endearing to me. Just drop a signature under whichever one you prefer, one from each year. It's not a democracy though, I'm not going to work on something I just don't care about and I prefer it to have at least 2k views on average, no point making an article for 65 people. I don't want to do another Die Hard or Batman film.

1996 - I decided to go with Scream, but I might take a look at some other suggestions just to tidy them up a little.

This year actually has a lot of films I watched and enjoyed, but I'm not sure if there is value in Independence Day (1996 film) or Twister in terms of modern influence. I love The Rock but you can imagine how hard it would be to research that on Google. The two biggest choices I am drawn to are:

Scream (1996 film)

Votes: Lankyant (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lazman321 (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Allen 23:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Watch (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Space Jam

Votes: Newtothisedit (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make a suggestion

Suggestions: Maybe Mars Attacks! or Happy Gilmore? JOE BRO 64 11:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say either Happy Gilmore or Twister, but Space Jam would also be a fun read. I love your work but I do get more excited when you do articles that are poorly expanded and not already GAs :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity which of the ones I've done fall into that category? I don't generally pay attention to if they're GAs or not, just the length/depth of the content and the aesthetic issues. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know the two Batman ones and T2 were been GAs, but things like Raiders, Groundhog Day, Empire, Starship Troopers, and a few others weren't. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as suggestions go, The Rock, Space Jam or Twister are honestly great ones to go for. Scream is good too (a trendsetter for slasher films) but looking at your work on more serious films, a more light-hearted loony film for a change would be good for you imo. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evita, far and away my favorite of 1996 (but already featured, so not a contender). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Closed, a fairly obvious winner has emerged.

Blade (1998 film) because it was bad ass but I imagine it would just be a nightmare to source and bring up to a deep level of content.

Votes: Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan, I'm mostly learning toward this one. I've only ever watched it once and that heart stab freaked me out but it is special to me because I know my dad liked it.

Votes: JOE BRO 64 11:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lankyant (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

–♠Vamí _IV†♠ 21:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon (1998 film), similarly he liked this but I don't think it contributes much to Wikipedia or society to expand on it.

Votes:

Make a suggestion:

Suggestions: Aside from Ryan I'd say either Rush Hour or The Truman Show but I'd personally choose the former of the two. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After rewatching Truman Show I'd go with that one. Also for 2000, maybe American Psycho? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider them both, I think I'd have to rewatch the Truman Show, I've only ever watched it the once because I was obviously a huge Jim Carrey fan at the time, dude was on a legendary run, but I don't recall thinking it was all that great. American Psycho might be a good shout, it's meme legacy alone is substantial. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Scream. Hdog1996 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion I'd make is Dark City. Quirky and yet quite intriguing. A lot of technical aspects involved in it too. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol \| July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

Hello Darkwarriorblake,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination: MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Back to the Future

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Back to the Future, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work! I'm sorry for keeping you waiting so long. Ovinus (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi Darkwarriorblake,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Starship Troopers (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Total Recall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Style and content. Reference subgrouping?

Do you think grouping references into footnotes with a generic caption is an improvement?[1] The editor specifically said he was doing it "to help out DWB". I expect you might have done this sort of thing already as part of your rewrite if it was something you actually wanted but maybe you do like this extra subgrouping. It seems very strange to me.

I was almost going to revert it but it was so weird and clearly deliberate I asked the editor to explain. Perhaps it is something new or just that I have not seen before. While I have seen some editors group multiple references together inside a <ref> tag and using a list, I have not seen this particular version of subgrouping them using footnotes and a generic caption. This seems overcomplicated and unnecessary to me but I try to focus on content issues rather than style issues and but if you like the extra subgrouping then maybe it could still be improved, and a more specific useful caption provided.

(While I'm already commenting here I may as well point out that I another issue. I strongly disagree your recent bold change that added inflation adjusted figures to the article, and in particular that they were added as footnotes in the Infobox and have tried to explain on the Talk page in more detail than an edit summary would allow.) -- 109.78.195.60 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Zmbro has mostly answered my questions about this style of reference grouping. -- 109.78.195.60 (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens FAC

Hey mate, love the work you do on Wiki! I wondered if you had thought about renominating Aliens for FA. I would be happy to help. Would also love if you could have a look over Alien (film). Both deserve to be made to Featured.

Thanks Lankyant (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're in luck Lankyant, I literally renominated Aliens for FAC about 20 minutes ago - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aliens (film)/archive2. At the moment I'm trying to get Aliens done so the 80s are complete and then finish off the 90s. I might do Alien in the future but I'm trying to avoid doing more than one film in a series, I only did Ghostbusters 1 and 2 because I started them before I started picking a film a year, otherwise I'd have probably done the original 1989 Batman. TBH it'd be nice if other editors picked up my work as a bit of a template and did some of the other films that needed doing, even if it was a section as doing these FACs can easily take a month of on and off work. Like to get through to the 2020s, that's probably 2-3 years away if I kept going as I have been doing which is unlikely as I need a break from it. It's the 90s in particular that have worn me out because they're all so special effects heavy that I end up having to write effects sections almost as long as the entire article of the film. I can see some elements I'm doing get picked up, like I was going to work on American Psycho and I can see that TheJoebro64 has been doing a good job over there. RE: Alien, TBF, looking at Alien now it looks like a lot of work has been done, it just needs some copyediting and probably references checking, but the frame seems to be there. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's weird, sorry I didn't even check! I'm planning to do the work on Alien, got a section on feminism to write out. apologies I meant more look it over as it is now and point me in what direction to get it to FA as I just rescued it back to GA, as opposed to you doing it all (thought I might as well get the advice of the pro) Good luck with the Aliens FAN and thanks for the amazing work you've done for Wikipedia Lankyant (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever want input or someone to go over the writing I'm more than happy to do that. It's the info gathering stage that is a nightmare, because you're pulling random bits of interesting info from hundreds of sources and then have to stitch them altogether and tbh it's getting a bit tiring on my wrists which is another reason I need to take a break. It's hard because I enjoy doing it. I'm doing Se7en right now because I'm hoping it's relatively simple, but then after I finished re-watching the film this morning I saw that Rob Bottin did the effects for it -_- so that's probably gonna be super detailed. I need something simple again like Trading Places, no effects, just basic filming please XD Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it! And yea I can imagine it's a nightmare of a grind. Amazing you've done so many.

Just do Office Space (film), simple, great, basic film with a cult following ;) no flashiness or special effects and it's actually a good 90s film!

But yea do take a break, don't break yourself for the wiki! Lankyant (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens rollback

Actually that rollback of mine on Aliens of your image removal was an accidental misclick. I hadn’t even noticed I’d done it so apologies. Perils of using a tablet. Canterbury Tail talk 23:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shit, sorry Canterbury Tail, I just wanted the FA to go smoothly, I did this article like a year or two ago now and I just want it off my list. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries, I'm the one responsible for my edits accidental or not. Canterbury Tail talk 18:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edition in Starship Troopers (1997) was undid by you

Why did you undid my edit on the 1997 Starship Troopers movie article? Because the truth is you are deleting data that is already known and was already released a long time ago. Many sources describe the movie is owned by Sony Pictures and Buena Vista Pictures, that's why 1997 Starship Troopers was released by Sony Pictures Releasing only in North America territory, and by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution only in non-North America territory. And by the way, I remember very well when the distribution section from the infobox of the article of the mentioned movie describes Sony Pictures Releasing as the distributor in North America territory, and Buena Vista Pictures Distribution as the distributor in non-North America territory. So, I am disagree for undid my edit. Ivo Reátegui (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want, the difference in your content and mine is that mine is sourced and yours isn't. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer seems to be rude. First, you told me that my content of my edit is unsourced and your is it. However, the fact is the movie is the main source of the content that I put. You shoudl have check the main movie again including its posters, DVD covers and Blu-ray covers apart of the sources that you know for understand why I put that information in my edit. Finally, remember that the information that I put in my edit on 1997 Starship Troopers is not in vain. Ivo Reátegui (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Infobox is for the theatrical release, not blu-rays, DVDs, or anything else, and it's sourced to two industry sources. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 11:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review swap

Hey! I noticed you've got Aliens up at FAC and I'd be willing to give a review in exchange for a review of my current FAC, Katana Zero. JOE BRO 64 20:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll take a look Joe. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You had mentioned that you might be able to take a look at doing some support/oppose comments for one of the sports articles at FAC here: [2]. The coordinators are requesting added reviewers sometime over the next couple days if you might be able to find the time. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review restore

Bro why did u restored my edit in the dark knight...it is fact that it is the 49th highest-grossing film of all time.... Harharshit (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you removed the part that said it was the 4th highest grossing film of its time, which is an achievement. Being the 49th highest grossing film NOW is not. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Darkwarriorblake,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

The Dark Knight

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for The Dark Knight at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Baffle! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we got there eventually! :) Good luck with your planned FA nom. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Aliens (film)

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Aliens (film), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Returns copyedit

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Batman Returns at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with FA and all the best, Miniapolis 01:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens (film)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 December 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the article, "about the 1986 science fiction action film Aliens directed by James Cameron and starring Sigourney Weaver, in what would be the first of the two trendsetting sequels he made"! - Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 2 effects

Hello Blake I would just like to let you know that some of your spelling on the terminator 2 judgment day effects page was incorrect in some places. Pettymars0193 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Sjones23

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies § Plot summary format. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question/suggestion

Hey there DWB. I noticed you hadn't yet chosen a film for 2003 yet so I have a question for ya. What about Elf? It's one of my favs (currently watching it rn) and undeniably a Christmas classic (the page views certainly show for it. Given it turns 20 next year, it's just a thought. Happy holidays :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zmbro, you have a nice holiday too. I will consider it but I don't recall being super fond of Elf, not in that it was bad, I think I just watched it too late in life to really like it, but I know people who worship it so who knows? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

Hey! Just wanted to come by and say that The Dark Knight looks amazing. Good job and good luck on the FA process! Mike Allen 20:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike, still a lot to go though, I'm squeezing it in where I can! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

Hello Darkwarriorblake, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023.
Happy editing,
JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 14:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheJoebro64, hope you have a great time too! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aliens

Thanks for your great work. I saw the film when it was first released, and the honest truth is that there was nothing else like it at the time and blew a lot of minds. Cameron was able to do something that had never been done before, a true innovator, and that’s somewhat rare in a world where everyone is a copycat of some kind another. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes Cameron was on a roll with this and Terminator 2. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight

You just got another FA, well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SNUGGUMS, and for your thorough review to help make it its best. That's my 23rd featured article and on the 1st of the 1st, 2023. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of The Dark Knight

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, The Dark Knight, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for working on the article of this masterpiece film. Anything less than FA doesn’t do this film proper justice. If you plan to work on a 2010 film at some point, consider Inception. :) FrB.TG (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Inception might win by default, there isn't much I like in 2010. From 2000-2011 is a pretty bad time for movies for me as the biggest stuff is all Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Twilight Saga, the terrible fourth Indiana Jones, remakes, reboots, and Transformers + their sequels, and I just wasn't into any of that at all. And then the 2010+ are pretty much all Marvel films, which there are some I like but they all have a very specific article format that I can't change so there's no interest there for me in working on them. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiator Article for 2000 Featured Article Project.

Hello, I expanded the Gladiator (2000) article to match your style and maybe you could add it as your feature article project for 2000. Take a look at it and see if you could edit it. I’m struggling with the context section because of my syntax. Also, thanks for doing the Saving Private Ryan article for your project. Can’t to read that.

I also have some ideas for your FA project. Fill free to use these suggestions.

1996 - Scream

2000 - Gladiator 2001 - Legally Blonde 2002 - Spider-Man 2003 - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl 2004 - Spider-Man 2 2005 - Batman Begins 2006 - Casino Royale 2007 - Transformers 2008 - The Dark Knight / Special effects of The Dark Knight 2009 - Avatar/The Hangover

2010 - Inception 2011 - Bridemaids 2012 - Dredd 2013 - Pacific Rim 2014 - Edge of Tomorrow 2015 - Mad Max: Fury Road 2016 - Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 2017 - Blade Runner 2049 2018 - A Quiet Place 2019 - Joker Hdog1996 (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 February 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 18, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Your work is noticed and very much appreciated. I like reading your articles. Coldbolt (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Coldbolt! :) Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Saving Private Ryan contributions

Thanks for doing Saving Private Ryan as your pick for 1998. That’s my all time favorite movie. Hope you have a 1996 movie ready to do! Hdog1996 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I might move to a more recent film next, I want something relatively easy like John Wick (2014), which I might use to replace Edge of Tomorrow because that article is already pretty built up, and The Matrix is gonna be super lengthy because of all the special effects, themes, merchandise, and spin-offs. Scream seems to be winning 1996, but that will be hard to research because it's a common word and they did another film in the series with the same name which does not help. It actually gets harder as time goes on because there aren't many films in the 2000s and 2010s that I'm as passionate about as the 80s ones. Like 1987 has Robocop, Lethal Weapon, Predator, Beverly Hills Cop 2, Masters of the Universe, Hellraiser, Planes Trains and Automobiles, Roxanne, Spaceballs, and THe Lost Boys. So many great films to develop just that year, while the 2000s is all Harry Potter, Transformers, Lord of the Rings, and terrible horror films and remakes. The 2010s at least have John Wick and Mad Max Fury Road (I like Marvel films, there's just no point working on those articles, they're already massive), although I'm not sure whether to do John Wick 1 or 2, as I actually prefer 1 a bit because it opens the world more. Decisions, decisions. If I could only get paid to do this... Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Wick one would be a fun one to do. Hdog1996 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1996

Have you seen Evita? Thanks for putting my attention on it again, haven't seen it in years, an amazing film and the key to watching it is knowing that Che is Che Guevera as Evita's alter-ego if she was a male in a macho dominated South America at the time. It's quite interesting that Antonio Banderas is almost a spitting image of Che at that age. A masterpiece, and Madonna was literally born to play the role (it's on her birth certificate). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am aware of Evita but it's not really in my wheelhouse Randy Kryn. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Campbellcoxarquette.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Campbellcoxarquette.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your efforts Gerda Arendt!! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for TFA Back to the Future, introduce with music: "Dun dun dunnnnnnnn dun dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnnn da da da dun dun dun dun dun da dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

You should now hopefully have the song stuck in your head for a while. This article is about Back to the Future, possibly the greatest family film ever made about a kid going back in time and almost accidentally having sex with his mom. Pure family entertainment with an enduring legacy, it is now your turn to go feel the power of love and supply the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to elevate this article to FA status." - Sorry, I was busy that day and then forgot. I like your new signature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence as always Gerda Arendt! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my edit to "Raiders of the Lost Ark"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edits to Raiders of the Lost Ark, with the comment

Restored revision 1129289073 by Nowy Prywaciarz (talk): This rank isn't in the sources and not how his google searches show him either, the positioning of the separate article link doesn't seem to change it visually at all, but it does create further white space at the bottom of the section unnnecessarily

On the first point, you are correct; I made the change to Major Todt's agency because it matched his entry in the List of Indiana Jones characters. However, upon checking, I have found that the novelization supports your contention, and have fixed the other mention of it.

On the second point, the MOS supports my version—see MOS:ORDER—a link I usually include in my comments to this type of change, but apparently forgot this time. I also forgot to delete the "clear" template, which would removed the whitespace by allowing the images in question to carry over into the next section.

In light of these points, would you please be so kind as to allow me to re-implement my change to the positioning of the hatnote, as well as to delete the "clear" template? —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops—I forgot to point out that in mobile format the relative positioning of the hatnote and the images is noticeable—the two items are stacked, the order depending upon which is first on the page. —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Doc, if you want to change the hatnote that's fine, I will try and sort something out regarding the white space without it impacting the section below. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit looks good to me—thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

I don’t care how many editors agreed upon it or whether or not it went under an FAC check. Please stop reverting my constructive edits to Groundhog Day (film), or just put a lock on it if you think it’s infallible. 67.169.64.53 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No? You don't get to make edits and people can't undo them because they disagree with them. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Sources for the Context section for your John Wick Project.

If you’re on planning adding a context section for your John Wick project, I have some sources you can use.

https://www.indiewire.com/2014/08/four-summer-2014-box-office-takeaways-how-hollywood-lost-its-mojo-239623/amp/

https://variety.com/2014/film/news/summer-box-office-low-analysis-1201292170/amp/

I even made a draft of it if you would like to use it. I can’t find any articles that say there was low expectations for the film, so you’re going to have to find some.

Context (John Wick). By the theatrical fall of 2014, the film industry was in decline. The theatrical summer had a total cross of $4.1 billion, a 15% decline from the previous summer and the lowest total since 2006. This was a result of shifting release dates, a lack of anticipated films that were either delayed to 2015 or being disturbed on video on demand, and a lack of anticipated projects from top male stars. Even as production costs went down and attendance for female audiences rose, industry analysts blamed the decline on the weaker slate of films released that summer. Studio executives were expecting the fall slate of films to match the previous year’s record performance, with anticipation for Gone Girl, Interstellar, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I, and The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, but expectations were low for John Wick as Reeves had not been in high demand in recent years. Hdog1996 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Hdog1996, this is fantastic and I really appreciate it, takes a little work off my plate. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. I can help you with the context part of your Scream project if you want, but that’s going to be hard because for one, the film came out in December and I can’t find articles on the holiday theatrical season of 1996, and two I can’t find good articles about what the box office was after that summer. Hdog1996 (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely don't have to do that, but if you do want to, I have found these links:

I've found if you use Google, put in your search term and follow it with site:variety.com (Variety.com as an example) you can search just that website but the search results can be sometimes better than the site's own search function. You are right however, I wasn't able to see much relating to the summer box office which is surprising given it had Independence Day. The difficulty is knowing what terms to search for, I search for box office but it could be "Summer in review", "looking back at the theater", anything really as it's not consistent. There doesn't seem to be much discussion about how Scream was perceived leaidng up to its release either. Sometimes it's just not possible, Aliens doesn't have a context section, I really struggled even to find analysis of its performance which stunned me because, to me, Aliens should be a huge film, but apparently at the time, it did well but it wasn't analysed or looked at much beyond that. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s some I found that is the closet.

https://ew.com/article/1996/09/06/summer-1996-box-office-report/

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/30/movies/hollywood-reeling-as-many-blockbusters-become-quick-busts.html Hdog1996 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hdog. I tell a lie, Aliens does have a context section, it was the analysis I struggled with. I'll take a look at your refs soon. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I made a draft for the context section for your Scream project if you want to use it instead of making one yourself. This the best I could do. It’s mainly a cross between your analysis for Starship Troopers and Groundhog’s Day.

I also found more sources and found a good article on Scream from the Ringer, which also did excellent articles for Total Recall and Terminator 2.

Context (Scream)

In 1996, the domestic box office reached a record $5.8 billion and had twelve films grossed over $100 million, with Independence Day and Twister earning over $300 million and $200 million respectively. However, the success of the industry’s performance was undermined by a glut of too many releases that resulted in several box office flops, while also making it difficult for otherwise successful films to turn in a profit. Record high-salaries for actors such as Jim Carrey and Demi Moore also became the subject of industry scrutiny as The Cable Guy and Striptease failed commercially. This resulted in studios having to reduce their film slate by fifty percent as a result of rising costs of making and marketing movies and underperforming films. Miramax had planned to release Scream as counter-programming in the holiday season of 1996, where forty films were scheduled for release including Space Jam, Ransom, The English Patient, Star Trek: First Contact, Mars Attacks!, Beavis and Butthead Do America, and Jerry Maguire.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/screens/1996-11-29/525712/

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/30/movies/hollywood-reeling-as-many-blockbusters-become-quick-busts.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/17/business/film-glut-prompts-disney-to-halve-production.html

https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/movies/2021/12/20/22840882/scream-oral-history-wes-craven-neve-campbell-drew-barrymore Hdog1996 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much again Hdog, this is really helpful :) Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Campbellcoxarquette.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Campbellcoxarquette.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T2

Hey I know you're in the middle of trying to get this thing promoted. After reading the Production section, I just felt the need to make some changes. Hopefully you consider most of that minor and helpful. I may keep going if I can find the time. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it's fine, thank you GoneIn60 Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Feel free to revert anything back that I touch. Going to fly through a few more sections. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Scream Context section and possible Top section

I understand that your user page for Scream and John Wick have been moved to [removed], but regardless I still want to contribute to the Scream page since that’s one of my favorite horror films.

I revised the context section you guys can use for Scream and found two references that can be useful. It’s mainly similar to Seven’s context analysis and has a mix of Groundhog’s Day’s context analysis. Because Scream was released in late 1996, I pretty much decided to discuss how the year had record performances, but a glut of too many releases.

Context

The theatrical year of 1996 achieved a $5.8 billion domestic box office record and had twelve films grossed over $100 million, with Independence Day and Twister earning over $300 million and $200 million respectively. However, the box office record was also impacted by a glut of too many releases that resulted in several box office flops, studio bankruptcies, and otherwise successful films struggling to turn in a profit due to the rise in production costs. A contributing factor was the record high-salaries for celebrities such as Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson, Jim Carrey, Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, Julia Roberts, and Demi Moore that became the subject of industry scrutiny following several high profile flops that were released in between 1995 and 1996. This resulted in studios, including Miramax’s sister company Buena Vista Pictures, having cutting their film slate by fifty percent to offset growing production and marketing costs and ensure more profits. Forty films were scheduled for release in the late theatrical year of 1996 including Space Jam, Ransom, Star Trek: First Contact, Mars Attacks!, Beavis and Butthead Do America, and Jerry Maguire. Along with their Academy Awards contender The English Patient, Miramax had planned to release Scream as counter-programming in the holiday season, a decision that was unpopular from the cast and crew.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-11-14-fi-2989-story.html https://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/04/08/Study-Film-stars-are-overpaid/2778828936000/

I also made a revised top section you and UltraEgo can use and revise around. Enjoy

Top

Scream is a 1996 American slasher film directed by Wes Craven and written by Kevin Williamson. It stars David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan, Skeet Ulrich, Jamie Kennedy, and Drew Barrymore. Set in the fictional town of Woodsboro, California, high school student Sidney Prescott (Campbell) and her group of friends become the targets of a mysterious killer in a Halloween costume known as Ghostface on the anniversary of her mother’s death.

Williamson, a struggling writer at the time, was inspired by reports of a series of murders by the Gainesville Ripper. Developed under the title Scary Movie, Williamson’s script became the subject of an intense bidding war from multiple studios before Miramax Films purchased the rights. Despite turning down the film multiple times, Craven agreed to direct the film after considering the script’s satirical nature of the clichés of the slasher genre popularized in films such as Halloween (1978), Friday the 13th (1980), and Craven's own A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). The involvement of Barrymore and Cox helped secure support from the studio. Principal photography took place from April to June of 1996 in California on a budget of $15 million. Craven had to trimmed down the violence in the film after being subjected in a tense conflict with the Motion Picture Association of America over the desired R-rating he wanted.

Scream was not expected to perform well on its December 20, 1996 theatrical release date, a time normally reserved for family entertainment. Despite this, it went on to earn approximately $173 million worldwide, becoming a surprise success and one of the highest-grossing films of the year. Critics praised the performances of its cast and its unique meta style of the characters being aware of real-world horror films, but criticized the violence and conforming to the cliches it tried to subvert. Scream revitalized the careers of Craven and Barrymore and helped elevate the careers of its young cast.

Scream is now regarded as one of the greatest horror and slasher films ever made. It has been credited for rekindling interest in the horror genre during the 1990s following an influx of direct-to-video titles, numerous sequels, and crime thrillers with horror elements. It has been considered a influential landmark to 21st century horror cinema, particularly casting already-established and successful actors, as well as marketing films towards teenage audiences. The film has had a lasting impact on popular culture, with Ghostface considered as one of the greatest horror villains in film history, though it had also received controversy for claims of real-world copycat crimes inspirations and inducing violence. The success of the film launched a multimedia franchise, which comprised the sequels Scream 2 (1997), Scream 3 (2000), Scream 4 (2011), Scream (2022), and Scream 6 (2023), as well as a television anthology series.

Hope this helps! Hdog1996 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the other account is to work without someone stealing my incomplete work and pasting it into another article so how have you come across it? I appreciate your help and I'll integrate it once I have finished up some other work. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration on Gladiator

I’ve been considering doing a sandbox on Gladiator (2000) to make it a feature article page. I know you’re going to be busy with The Matrix and Mad Max: Fury Road soon but I was wondering if you would like to help me with it. It seriously needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. I need help with casting, production, and historical accuracy and I was wondering if you can provide some sources with me.

I know that film isn’t probably your favorite, but I can make it the 2000 entry for you to use for your project if that’s okay with you. If not, I’d be happy to help with whatever film you pick from 2000.

But first I need to figure out how to transfer a Wikipedia article onto my sandbox. Can you send me a link? Hdog1996 (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see, I need a break after doing so many. To create a sandbox you need to go to your user page then add "/articlename". So if you go to User:Hdog1996/Gladiator and click "create page", that's your sandbox. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best initial tip for sourcing is to go to nytimes.com and latimes.com, search, sort by date, and you'll tend to find some decent sources. NYtimes sucks because you'll probably have to look up each article in webarchive as it's a subscription service. After that search whatever term you want, i.e. "Gladiator" AND "2000", then add site:hollywoodreporter.com or whichever site you prefer and it will search them generally better than the site's own search engine. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Like I said, Gladiator will be a hard one to work on. Hdog1996 (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to noticeboard

You are invited to this section of the Administrator noticeboard, regarding the layout of the cast section of The Rock. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saving Private Ryan/archive1

I've left comments for this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw it now has been promoted, and well done on another mission accomplished! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snuggums, I appreciate your help as always. I need to finish off Scream eventually, I've been slacking. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Seven (1995 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seven (1995 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lankyant -- Lankyant (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Seven (1995 film)

The article Seven (1995 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Seven (1995 film) for comments about the article, and Talk:Seven (1995 film)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lankyant -- Lankyant (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a article for Scream

Behold, I found a Los Angeles Times article that is the closest for the summer 1996 box office review. It was from August 16, 1996.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-08-16-fi-34898-story.html

It doesn’t exactly state the number of films grossing over $100 million when I skimmed through it, but this will help your context section for Scream. Hdog1996 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TFA nom for Trading Places

I have nominated Trading Places to be today's featured article for June 8. As the FAC nominator, your input is invited on the nomination page, which you can access by clicking here. Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Wick (film)

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for John Wick (film) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Baffle gab1978! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was keeping the Mustang reference deliberately generic - with the specifics in a footnote - to avoid reopening that wound. You deliberately reopened it. Why? DiogenesNY (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I've now obtained proper sources so that it is discussed properly in the article rather than the hidden note which was still trying to imply that it's intended to be a Mach 1 and Iosef just got it wrong. The sources back up is meant to be a Boss but they couldnt destroy Boss cars, in the plot its a Boss 429 and the differences are negligible to anyone but experts and it is discussed in the article and explained in the note. That's a LOT of backup I have done to both support what it's intended to be in the film and what it is portrayed by which you did not do, so you coming in and changing it again is somewhat irritating to say the least. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Seven (1995 film)

On 14 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Seven (1995 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ned Beatty turned down the role of John Doe in the film Seven because the script was the "most evil thing" he had ever read? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Seven (1995 film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Seven (1995 film)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol \| May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Saving Private Ryan

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Saving Private Ryan, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seven (1995 film)

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Seven (1995 film) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkwarriorblake, this is a large article and will take me ~~several decades~~ at least a few days to copy-edit, depending on how much work is needed, so please be patient. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No rush Baffle gab1978, it's not high on my list of articles I'm taking to FA status right now so no rush. I did notice you've added " Mills opens the package and is horrified at its contents" which I've not changed becasue it'd require further changes in the preceding and following sentences and I don't want to interfere with what you're doing, but Mills never sees inside the box, only Somerset does. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 11:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thanks for picking up on that, I'll check the history and correct it later tonight. I haven't seen that film since 1995 at the flicks. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the above error. While working today, I've noticed some over-citation in the Production --> Casting subsection, which I've tagged with {{overcite}}; in one case, one sentence has five refs. I've also noticed some uncited direct quotations; I've marked these with {{citation needed}} tags. I realize these are probably cited at the end of the paragraph but direct quotations should have an inline reference per WP:CITE. I'll continue marking these problems as I work through the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of "Design" --> "Style and set design", a word is missing from the following sentence: The ceilings of the sex club in which the lust victim is murdered were lowered to make the space more claustrophobic, and [missing word] was sprayed on the walls to give texture and to imply they are covered in bodily fluids.. I've added [clarification needed] where the missing word (obviously a noun) should be. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) In "Design" --> "Title credits", I find Fincher wanted Mark Romanek to direct the sequence, being a fan of his music video for "Closer" and sharing similar design sensibilities,. You should state the artist of "Closer" and wikilink the name if possible. If you can't do either, maybe remove "Closer" and just say "one of his music videos instead. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also moved the contents of the section "Post release", which included the subsections "Home media" and "Other media", to the main "Release" section, where I'd expect to find it. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also found one sentence quoting from Rolling Stone that actually cited Variety, which quoted the Rolling Stone article so I've added a ref to the original source. Anyway I'm finished; good luck with your planned FA nom. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkham Origins Set In 2013

https://www.reddit.com/r/BatmanArkham/comments/11kyx4b/arkham_origins_takes_place_in_december_2013_as/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1 Are You Happy Now to Know the Arkham Games Are Set In Modern Day. JackBridgestone (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit is a really unreliable source, for your knowledge. This will help you understand sources that are reliable or not. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible 1970s films for FA Project

I doubt you’ll add films from the 1970s, but if you were to include one great film from each year of the 1970s for your project, what would they be? I might see someone doing something like that for films like Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, and maybe Star Wars. Hdog1996 (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think anything like that would be long off, there are so many already to do and I'm a lot busier post-Covid than I was during, but I appreciate your suggestions, Godfather and Star wars are probably ones I would pick. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godfather would be a blast to do, especially since there are a ton of sources to use. I even bought the new book of the making of it. Hdog1996 (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just letting you know that I've been indefinitely suspended from Reddit for "breaking the rules". They're rejecting all my appeals and not communicating with me what exactly I did. It kind of sucks, as I've taken care to be nonconfrontational and admittedly innocuous on the site over the past eleven years. Oh, well... I guess it's also another opportunity to depart from my adolescent DarthBotto persona. BOTTO_(T•C) 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that moderators work for free for the most part and can be just regular assholes who apply rules arbitrarily so don't take it too personally. You can have that many alternate accounts I'd just sign up again.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary of The Kingdom

DWB, a user name Sundayclose has drastically reduced plot summary of The Kingdom to this amount. I hope we can find a way to trim it down properly without such drastic removal of plot summary. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BattleshipMan, have you seent The Kingdom? Do you know who the "her" is referring to in "Leavitt asked Fleury and Mayes what he had whispered to her to calm her down. "Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leavitt asks Fleury what he said to Mayes. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Thank you today for Trading Places, "about the 1983 comedy film Trading Places starring Eddie Murphy (in only his second film at the beginning of his career explosion), a pre-Ghostbusters Dan Aykroyd and pre-"The Body" Jamie Lee Curtis. It's one of those comedies that has lasted with me and is enjoyable to put on now and again, and it even gave me an appreciation for classical music." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tireless work as always Gerda Arendt Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the The Dark Knight article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 14, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 14, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, today, for the article "about The Dark Knight, the 2008 superhero film that redefined the genre, broke bunches of records, and established Heath Ledger as one of the greatest comic character incarnations of all time!"! --

New message from Sjones23

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film) § Summary of reviews in the lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hi, Darkwarriorblake. Apologies for this message but I was wondering whether you still wanted to leave comments at the FAC for Angel Aquino? I am only asking because you did say that you would aim to look at it. However, if things are busy IRL, that is completely fine. Thanks and have a great weekend ahead. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I forgot, I will take a look. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and much appreciated :) Pseud 14 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Darkwarriorblake,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Box Office Data for pre-1991 films

When I read the Robocop article, I was surprised that box office numbers weren’t available outside of North America. How come there is inconsistency when it comes to international box office data during the 1970s and 1980s? There wasn’t never any figures for Robocop’s international box office when Raiders of the Lost Ark and Empire Strikes Back had international figures. Was it a studio problem back then or was box office tracking was different back then? Hdog1996 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the definitive answer but if you look at context sections for the 90s films I've done, particularly (I think) Total Recall, I think the idea was that pre-1990s the international market just wasn't considered to be very big and didn't have the same level of tracking publicly as we do today. Then throughout the 1980s you have films that are doing huge numbers more and more on the international stage until the 90s when you have people like Schwarzenegger commanding huge sums because of their international appeal and those markets outside of the US beginning to contribute half or more of the total gross so they became significiantly more important and more worth tracking. Like it's insane to me there's no precise international number for Aliens but they just didn't seem to care about those markets in terms of reporting numbers. Those figures WILL exist, Sudiani has sourced the odd few in very old Variety magazines but these aren't easy to access or free so it's hard to research.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s crazy how much has changed between then and now when tracking international figures. I do agree that researching that is hard, particularly if you’re going to do a film from the 1970s. The other day I was searching the box office weekend tracking for Apocalypse Now and it only showed it placing in the top three on the opening weekend of the 70mm version with no credits.

I’m really curious to see how the 2010s films you chose will have in their context and release sections because I saw a trend during the 2010s where films like Warcraft and Pacific Rim had mediocre performances in North America but did outstanding in international markets like China and Japan. Hdog1996 (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed clean up for Total Recall’s context section.

I was going add some sources to Total Recall’s context section from the Los Angeles Times and I did a rewrite of it. See if this would be useful to add.

Following the previous year’s record $5 billion box office, more films than ever were expected to surpass $100 million at box office as fifty films were scheduled for release during the summer theater season of 1990 (May 18 – September 3). Dick Tracy was predicted to dominate the summer box office, and films such as Another 48 Hrs., Back to the Future Part III, Days of Thunder, Die Hard 2, RoboCop 2, and Total Recall were expected to perform well based on their brand recognition and star appeal. These films were all scheduled for release by the end of June to ensure a long theatrical run during the peak time of the year, and other releases were scheduled to avoid opening against them. The importance of domestic box office grosses was also decreasing as studios increasingly earned profits from home media releases, television rights, and markets outside of the United States and Canada. International markets increased film production costs as stars commanded higher salaries to compensate for their international appeal, with Total Recall, Die Hard 2, and Days of Thunder among the most expensive films being released. Average salaries for male leads had also increased to between $7–$11 million.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-20-ca-257-story.html Hdog1996 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this Hdog Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film article lead sections

Hello, regarding this edit, I encourage you to read MOS:FILMLEAD again: Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources. Cherrypicking aspects from individual reviews in the article body is exactly the type of synthesis that's addressed here. There are no sources supporting this kind of summary statement presently used in the article, i.e. sources supporting that the film was generally praised for these specific aspects. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a summary of content IN the article, it's not synthesis, that is the content of the section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about synthesis. This is another prime example. It's precisely not explicitly supported by these citations because neither of those three sources explicitly say that "several reviewers" have singled out the film's special effects; you're using three individual reviews to reach a new conclusion. WP:SYNTH says that we do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's three reviews praising the special effects, the only change I'd have to make is list three names instead of saying several. I could add thirty reviews but I'm not interested in doing that. The lead is meant to summarize the body text, which part of those aspects do you believe are either not present in the article or countered? It's one of my older projects and I'm happy to hear your thoughts, but just saying "critcally praised" when there's a whole subection of content isn't the answer and it's not Synth to state what is the content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the second bit I bolded above and perhaps think about it for a minute. I know it can be hard to wrap one's head around, especially since so many film articles disregard that policy, but it is synthesis. See the article for Halloween Ends for example, which uses a source that itself summarizes the critical reception. Jurassic Park uses Rotten Tomatoes's summary statement in the lead, as many other articles do. I'm happy to start a talk page discussion tho. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the only change I'd have to make is list three names instead of saying several -Yes, that is the change you'd have to make in order for it not to be synthesis. :) Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That'd still be several reviewers. You can start a talk page discussion because I don't agree with you. Noone challenged it at its FA which is not that long ago. The only thing I could agree with you on is the use of "non stop" in the lead, everything else is in the content of the critical reception section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've given MOS:FILMLEAD or WP:SYNTH a good read. It is fascinating that this has passed an FA review, but I digress... Off to the talk page. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to go into what does constitute a personal attack of the work I've put in to make the article as good as it is because you have a boner for WP:SYNTH, Throast. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to come off as passive aggressive, if I did I apologize. I genuinely hoped that we might come to an understanding at the end of this. I certainly don't have a "boner" for any Wikipedia policy. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol needs your help!

Hello Darkwarriorblake,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal question

Curious why you reversed this edit. Serials engaged in many, many genres. But "serial" is not a genre itself. That's like saying television is a genre. Thmazing (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this which is the edit and then read the third paragraph. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So . . . I'm right? And I should put it back to how I had it? Thmazing (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. I see what you're saying. I was right, but I should have made the edit to the first paragraph where the interlink first appears. Thmazing (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed assistance to help finish Scream project

I know you’re busy with other projects, but with permission, I would like to help finish your Scream project. I would basically be adding photos and find grammatical errors in it. Hdog1996 (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now Hdog, thank you, I want to get the prose and overall content in order first. I will finish it, just got a lot else on, and it's not far off at the moment I'm mostly copy editing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hdog1996, if you want to take a look at sections above filming, that'd be OK, just be careful not to lose info/mis match references. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can touch up the top section. I was going to remove the part about how the film revitalized Craven and Barrymore’s career since I don’t think it was sourced nor mentioned in the article. Now I believed from what I saw in the review section, the reviews were mixed, but I wasn’t going to add it. Hdog1996 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Scream-cast-at-fountain.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Scream-cast-at-fountain.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Visualeffectsscream1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Visualeffectsscream1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1970s great film project and Daily Variety Reliable?

So I’m just thinking about doing a project that’s exactly like yours except it’s going to be entirely on 1970s films. I’m considering doing Apocalypse Now first because it came out nine months before The Empire Strikes Back and that film, along with Payton, Willy Wonka, The Godfather, The Exorcist, Chinatown, Jaws, Rocky, Star Wars, and Halloween I think warrants a feature article expansion

I’ve tried looking up Apocalypse Now’s domestic weekend box office m at the only data I could find it’s on both Box Office Pro and The Numbers, and it’s only the 70mm version’s opening weekend. However, on Internet Archive, Dailey Variety has detailed tracking on the film for both the 70mm version (no credits) and the 35mm version (the one that had Brando’s base getting blown up). Would Daily Variety be a reliable source and would you recommend I focused on the 35mm version because it was the wide release?

I don’t know how aware you about the multiple difficulties Apocalypse Now had during production, but should I make multiple sections in the filming section in order for it to be both coherent and organized for the reader? Hdog1996 (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Variety is just Variety but daily so it should be reliable. In terms of sections I can't tell you exactly because it depends what content you have, and these can change as you develop the article so don't try to fit a set structure. You have things like Empire Strikes Back where the filming section is so big I've put it in it's own section and others like Ghostbusters II where there is a small filming section and a larger post-production section as they had to reshoot a lot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Apocalypse Now would have its own section for filming because it was so big and complicated because of harsh weather and typhoons, script rewrites, drug usage, Brando arriving on set literally fat and unprepared, and Martin Sheen suffering a near fatal heart attack after he was a replacement for Harvey Kietel.

Sure, Empire Strikes Back was stressful for Lucas because of the harsh conditions and shading financing situations, but Apocalypse Now took a psychological, physical, and financial toll on Coppola, who almost committed suicide. 12.49.25.255 (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is gather the information together, group it by content, i.e. maybe talk about all the issues in one part or do it by date if you prefer and can source it, and then based on how much content you've ended up with, that will tell you if it needs to be split into separate sections or not. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s good advice. I’ll actually try it out with Godfather first, since I decided last minute to do that one first. Hdog1996 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a source for your next project.

https://www.thewrap.com/summer-box-office-preview-2018-marvel/ Hdog1996 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alternative versions of Joker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alternative versions of Joker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Joker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

So I noticed that Harrison Ford is only top billed in Apocalypse Now Redux, which is the extended version of the film. He appears in both the original and redux versions. My question is for casting, do you only use top billed castings only or do you include major characters that appear only in both versions?

It’s completely different from Michael Biehn’s situation where he only appeared in the extended version of T2 and the whole dilemma where George Lucas replaced the original actor of Palpatine with Ian McDiarmid in the 2004 version of Empire Strikes Back. Hdog1996 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For which section? For the infobox we use the billing from the poster, and if not the top billing in the opening credits or the end credits if applicable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s for the casting section that has pictures of some of the actors. I’m stuck on putting Harrison Ford in there because he isn’t top billed in the 1979 poster of Apocalypse Now but he is for the 2001 redux poster. Hdog1996 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well HArrison Ford is billed on the poster and he proably wouldn't appear on the non Redux article if it was a small role so it would be fine to include him on Redux. If Apocalypse Now had images of the three top billed guys (I can't remember who they were) I wouldn't repeat those same images on Redux because they're already represented elsewhere so I'd be picking other people anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three top billed actors for Apocalypse Now are Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, and Martin Sheen.

For my project, I’m doing just the original version because Redux is just a Director’s cut. I’ll mention Redux and Final Cut together in the post-release section of the original release of the film. It’s the same thing you did for Empire Strikes Back. Hdog1996 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe I’ll do Redux as a separate article in the same manner you’ve done special effects articles for films such as Terminator 2, Empire Strikes Back, and Starship Troopers. Hdog1996 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Apocalypse Now would be a big project so I wouldn't worry about Redux Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

Fun fact about Apocalypse Now: a fourteen year old Laurence Fishburne lied to Coppola that he was eighteen when he was cast in the film. He actually turned eighteen when the film finally came out. I believe it was his film debut. Hdog1996 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Does a TFA for October 10 sound good? - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I'm not very good with film blurbs, but I'll give it a shot if you'd rather not do it. 925 to 1025 characters, please. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(We can work on it here or on the talk page of the FAC where the article was promoted.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I gave it a shot at WP:Today's featured article/October 10, 2023, see what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "'I told you... I'll be back' Hoping this sequel is as successful as the film on which it is focused. This is Terminator 2, the 1991 action film that pits machine against machine to preserve the future of humanity."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always Gerda Arendt for your dedication and care. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Outside Opinion

Hello DWB, I know you are probably very busy but I have been trying to get the article on the film Begotten up to FA status a couple times to no success. Within the past couple months I have reworked it and was wondering if you have any suggestions on things that need to be fixed or if I am good to go for a successful nomination. If you dont have time that is okay. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For every good FAC reviewer there are a bunch of dicks seeking to create busy work Paleface. What was your specific feedback as it seems pretty comprehensive but I'm not familiar with the film to say for sure. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake:Yeah you are right. I am just figuring out if its all formatted right and if my sources are all up to snuff. I did a lot of comprehensive edits and removing unreliable ones but I want to be sure. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hard part of this is going to be the sourcing. Like Movie Habit, why is that reliable? I know the frustration of finding really good information but from a source that I know FAC reviewers are going to hate, and how hard it is to find good references for something relatively niche AND old at the same time.
The web references are also not all archived using the code "archive-url= |archive-date= |url-status=live (or 'dead' if necessary)" meaning that even reliable references are subject to Link Rot.
Things like "In an interview with Scott MacDonald, Merhige alternately stated that filming spanned over a period of five-and-a-half months." Why is that hidden in a note? If he provided an alternate filming length shouldn't this be included in the text?
It's hard to give you clearer info, it seems comprehensive and you've obviously done a lot of research via physical media such as books and older news articles, and looking at the previous FACs, the first was almost all complaints about references and the second just didn't get enough attention (Which isn't unique, my first nomination of Aliens didn't attract any attention either so it's not necessarily the subject matter). I think the big thing will be improving the references, the web ones mainly. A good rule of thumb, though not a precise science, is that if it doesn't even have a wikipedia article it's probably not very notable a website, such as wearemoviegeeks.com. It might have great info, and it's frustrating because you want to use it, but it's never going to fly at a FAC nomination. There's also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which lists a lot of sources considered reliable and unreliable. Don't forget that you can use google to mass search websites as well, it's not perfect but you could type "Begotten" and then "site:nytimes.com" and it will search only results from nytimes so you might get better results. NYTimes is subscription based so if you can't view the article, search it in web.archive.org and you should be able to view the text. You can replace nytimes with latimes.com, hollywoodreporter.com, etc, which might get you some better sources. Hopefully that is of some help to you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. Sources such as Movie habit and movie geeks can and should be removed, and there are always alternate sources. I will get to work on archiving the web sources tomorrow and making some more edits. Since Merhige has always operated outside of Hollywood it will be interesting to find more sources. Best of luck on your endeavors with John Wick my friend. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this tool here which automatically archives the refs on the page. Not as bad on yours as you don't have as many web references whereas I tend to rely heavily on them so it takes the weight off archiving like 200+ refs. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still trying to figure out where to find the tool after autorizing it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it to work. Now, my only issue is how to structure the paragraph on the film appearing in lists of media outlets. Tried to structure it like you did with The Thing but it doesn't seem right or fit with the general flow. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at some of my more recent articles like Terminator 2, I've tended to stop naming publications unless they have particularly noteworthy comments and just group things together, so if it was on a list of most disturbing movies rather than mentioning the rank I'd just say "several publications called it one of the most disturbing films ever made" or the same thing but "some publications, such as [insert publication] and [insert publication] called it..." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distributors and production companies.

For my FAC project for Apocalypse Now, do I mention United Artists as UA like you mention 20th Century Fox as just Fox in your Die Hard and Aliens articles, or do I need to mention United Artists in its full name? There was a bunch of international distributors for Apocalypse Now, but it was distributed in North America by United Artists, so I’m only including United Artists in the infobox.

As for production companies, does the production company gets named as the one it was credited for copyright? American Zoetrope, Coppola’s company and produced and owns the film, was credited as Omni Zoetrope but during production it was called Coppola Cinema Seven. Hdog1996 (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The United Artists article says it has an official abbreviation of UA, so you as long as you establish the abbreviation in the first instance you can just refer to it as UA thereafter. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was making sure because I will need to put them into my project. The current revision of the Apocalypse Now article apparently states that one of the film’s television airings had “from MGM/UA” at the end credits, but I’m not going to mention MGM in it because they didn’t have the right for long once MGM bought UA in 1981 after the Heaven’s Gate disaster. Hdog1996 (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Darkwarriorblake,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my edits to Prometheus 2012 reverted?

Had described the sexual encounter between Jaken and Vickers and had described the deaths of Millburn and Fifield. AlAzhar 21:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMPLOT there is a 700 word limit which is to be kept as tight as possible and the count BEFORE your additions was 657. But regarldess of that limit, what does Janek and Vickers having sex have to do with an overall understanding of the plot? This "Inside the structure, a naive Millburn deliberately provokes a snake-like alien creature that had been swimming around in the black pool. The creature tightly wraps itself up on his arms and breaks it. As Fifield attempts to sever its head it sprays a corrosive fluid that melts Fifield's helmet. Fifield falls face-first into a puddle of dark liquid and dies an agonizing death. The creature then tears Millburn's suit and enter his helmet eventually entering his mouth killing him." is saying the same thing as "Inside the structure, a snake-like creature kills Millburn and sprays a corrosive fluid that melts Fifield's helmet." but editorializing and adding WP:OR with commentary like "naive Milburn" and "agonizing death" and also overexplaining every aspect of that scene. If they want details that's what watching the film is for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Wick (film)

Hi Darkwarriorblake. Just in case you missed it, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wick (film)/archive1 has been waiting for a response from you for a week. Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For you work on Groundhog Day (film)! Although it passed by me at fist having never watched it, it's since become one of my favorite movies of all time, so thank you for your work on it! Panini! • 🥪 17:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it, Groundhog Day is still probably my best work I think, it was so easy to find really juicy sources for it, except for the music, I could never find any info about that, I know that RAmis apparently wrote the Weatherman song that plays over the opening but never found a reliable source for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to talk page

You are invited to the talk page of The Expendables 4, regarding the change of title name that are causing some issues. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Seven and Starship Troopers

Do you know how I nominated articles for featured articles? I was going to nominate Seven and Starship Troopers because they are both excellent enough to warrant featured article status. Hdog1996 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can nominate them if you haven't had a significant role in them but you do it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, but I wouldn't at the minute anyway, I need to go over them both to trim them down a bit to try and avoid running into the same roadblocks at FA about length like we're on Geocities in the 1990s and have a 20mb traffic limit. Seven isn't far off, Starship Troopers is probably a bit too long so I know it will get complained about. I just want to get John Wick out of FA first and finish Mission Impossible but Seven is probably next on my list to promote. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on FA nomination

Hello Darkwarriorblake, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Communication for featured article status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Communication/archive1. So far, there has not been much response from reviewers. I was wondering whether you are inclined to have a look at it due to your interest in media. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really my area of expertise but I will take a look either this weekend or early next week. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do heart attacks count as injuries?

Dumb question, but would you consider heart attacks as injuries? I ask this because I will need it for my Apocalypse Now project because Martin Sheen had a near fatal heart attack during filming. I’m debating whether or not I should just put actor injuries in the top section for be specific.

Speaking of top section, would you put problems with the cast in the top section of discussing about problems with the actors on set because I got my work cut out with Marlon Brando’s behavior on set Hdog1996 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, a heart attack would just be a heart attack, I think it'd be classed as a condition if anything. As for the top section you can mention those things as issues but I'd summarize and mention maybe a key one or two. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines 2 Cover Art.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines 2 Cover Art.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Darkwarriorblake:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020s films?

How do you usually wait to do recent films for your featured article project? Would you be doing 2020s films in the future if given the chance like Top Gun Maverick or Oppenheimer? Hdog1996 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) I might do, got loads to already do and they're taking longer and longer. I have like 0 interest in Oppenheimer and Top Gun 2 though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Film Registry

So one of your project’s films got inducted into the National Film Registry. I was hoping Robocop or Seven joined the list, but Terminator 2 making it is awesome. Hdog1996 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Darkwarriorblake, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot InfiniteNexus! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ill link

Re [3], see Template:Interlanguage link, which in this case links to the French WP since an English WP article does not exist. Whatever you choose is fine by me. Aza24 (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Batman

Hey there DWB. I've been doing a rewatch of the Warner Batman films (currently on Forever) and I have to say, I do think Returns might be the best Batman film next to TDK. I went back through and read your Returns article and really appreciate your work on it – very insightful. I know you're probably burned out of writing about Batman but with that being said... Batman Begins for 2005? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zmbro. Begins is one of the options because there just aren't many films of the 2000s I like, but I also want to work on The Batman and four Batman films might be too much. It's all a long way off at this point either way, I was able to do all the 80s ones during Covid because there was no work to do so I got paid to sit on Wikipedia all day whereas my time is much more limited now. I want to try and get the Matrix done so at least the 80s and 90s are boxed off before I look at anything else. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Context

Would it be wise to add a context section for the 2023 in film page? I'm asking because the multiple flops and unexpected successes are noteworthy. I wrote this in it and see if it's wise to put it in there.

Context for 2023 The theatrical year of 2023 reached a record of $9.05 billion, becoming the most successful year in the COVID-19 pandemic and the highest total since 2019. However, the year was hindered by several high-profile box office flops from established franchises, a declining interest in the superhero film genre, and labor strikes from both the Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild. The high number of blockbuster films struggled at the box office was due to the high cost of production, with the average cost being $200-$300 million, as well as lack of marketing because of the strikes. The most successful films of the year were films with modest budgets, such as Barbie, Godzilla: Minus One, Oppenheimer, and The Sound of Freedom. The success of these films and the multiple blockbusters undeperforming indicated that audiences have grown tired of franchises and are seeking original content in theaters. Hdog1996 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think yes given what happened in 2023 that an analysis or context section would be really enlightening. I've had to cut down on them in my articles unless it relates to the specific film because it's become a hindrance at Featured ARticle Nominations, but on the 2023 in film page I think it would be really positive. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put on under the highest grossing films section and they deleted it and placed a similar analysis in the evaluation section. I was bummed because I also put that the only successful films in 2023 were films made under $200 million like Barbie, Oppenheimer, and Sound of Freedom and how audiences had grown tired to both superhero and franchise tentpoles. Hdog1996 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well I can't speak as to why another editor has done that bit if it's sourced and not a copy of content from the source then it seems like a reasonable point to make if more successful films were relatively lower budget. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dating of Aliens

Currently I am updating the dating for the new Alien: Romulus film, which is to be set between the time frame of Alien and Aliens. The dating of Alien is given as 2122, and your edit on Aliens states that it is 57 years after the first film, which is 2179. It makes sense to add the timeline since Alien: Romulus is coming out later this year. HenryRoan (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is mentioned in the film about a year though and retrospective information wouldn't be added in the plot, at most it would be a hidden note backed up with a reliable source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the director of Romulus has made a point of stating that his installment is set in time between the first film Alien and the second film Aliens, it seems that the films might be in danger of tripping over each other in readers' minds if the time frame is not made more explicit. Since your edit in the Aliens plot already states that it is exactly "57 years" later, then it makes sense to give the actual dating in more than a hidden note. Let me know what you think, dates or no dates in the Aliens article, dates or no dates in the Romulus sequel article? HenryRoan (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the reliability of the source but it would still be a hidden note because it's not stated in the film while 57 years is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No dates are mentioned in either Alien or Aliens. Any dates applied are post movie ret-cons which are not actually part of the original movies. I don't see why saying something is set between two movies requires a specific date, just between the movies is sufficient. You would need to provide a reliable source that the Alien and Aliens films are specifically (at the time) set in those years, which at the time they were just some unknown future. We write movies from the perspective of the original release, not any retconning that happened later. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cailee Spaeny (an actor in Romulus) stated to Variety that Alien: Romulus will take place between the events of 1979's Alien, and the 1986 sequel Aliens.^[1]

I also just located this official looking poster released for the film which might be good for the Infobox of the film if you know might know someone with experience on how to load it for the Wikipedia article here: [4].

Canterbury Tail: The published companion books to the film productions also contain information on the timelines if an added source is needed. HenryRoan (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again they were published well after the films and reconned dates into them. No date appears in the films. The plot is only for what appears in the film with the film as the primary source. If it doesn't appear in the film, it doesn't go in the plot section. MOS:FILMPLOT. Canterbury Tail talk 14:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other interwiki versions of the articles about Alien include the date for the film setting such as the one in Russian. Also its covered in the companion books such as: Becoming Alien: The Beginning and End of Evil in Science Fiction's Most Idiosyncratic Film Franchise (Reel Spirituality Monograph Series) Paperback – March 15, 2021 by Sarah Welch-Larson (Author).

Also this second source book covers the timeline in: Author: Perry, S. D. (Stephani Danelle), author. Title: Alien : The Weyland-Yutani Report / S. D. Perry. Publisher, Date: San Rafael, CA : Insight Editions, [2016]

Two reliable sources are usually sufficient to support adding the information, both those authors thought it was useful to add dates. If you do a search on "2122 Alien" in the Google search engine then a bunch of sources come up justifying the use of these dates. HenryRoan (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing what's being said to you. Per MOS:FILMPLOT only the film as a primary source is used for the plot. Since the date is not mentioned, referenced or shown in the film it cannot be included. You can find as many sources as you want, if it's not in the film it doesn't go in. Also what happens in other language Wikipedias has no baring on the English language Wikipedia and it's policies/guidelines etc, they're completely separate unconnected projects. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to disparage foreign wikis but we try to work to a higher standard and Aliens is also a Featured Article. We don't modify plots based on retcons developed in future instalments or spin-offs. The best example I can think of is we don't change Star Wars' plot to read "Luke meets with Leia, secretly his sister" which I don't think is identified until the third film. Dating the Aliens films is a mistake anyway, as they are they're relatively timeless, but as I've expressed above, if the information can be reliably sourced we could add it as a footnote, but we shouldn't be saying "In 2179" because that isn't in the film as it was released.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits have been centered on Romulus which Variety magazine says is to be set between Alien and Aliens in its time frame. If the years are not included in the Plot sections, then that sets up the problem for general readers to get confused when Romulus comes out about whether film A is set before film B or after film C, etc. Since DWB appears to offer the solution of using footnotes for this, and if you both agree to the footnotes solution, then I can look up the dates for all the films as listed in the Weyland-Yutani book which I cited above yesterday as a reliable source. I can post the results here over the next few days if both of you think that DWB's footnotes suggestion is the best approach at this time for the chronology issue between these films? HenryRoan (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't agree on the footnotes, it's trying to shoehorn in a retcon that doesn't exist in the films. And it's not a hard concept for people that Romulus takes place between Alien and Aliens. Actual years aren't needed for that concept and I think it's rather insulting people's intelligence to think they can't grasp such a simple concept. Plenty of films don't have specific dates with some taking place in between others, it's not an issue. It seems that you're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. "It's set between Alien and Aliens", done. You're also assuming that Romulus will have a specific date to it in the film, when none of Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 or Alien Ressurection have. Additionally, any conversations around this and about changes to the article should take place on the talk page of said articles, and not on a user talk page, so a wider audience can be reached for consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The larger chronology of Alien and its sequels is not generally known to viewers of the films, although on numerous websites and published books the chronology is very consistently given as:

Alien vs. Predator (2004, it was supposed to be 'present day' when released)

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2004, also set in 2004 as a direct sequel to AVP)

Prometheus (2089, as stated in its Wikipedia Plot section now)

Alien: Covenant (2104, as stated in its Wikipedia Plot section now)

Alien (2122, not currently in its Wikipedia Plot section though well sourced on web)

Alien: Romulus (sometime between 2122 and 2179 according to Variety magazine)

Aliens (2179, not currently in its Wikipedia Plot section which only states its 57 years after Alien)

Alien 3 (2179, same year as Aliens)

Alien: Resurrection (2381, several hundred years later)

The dating of the films is currently inconsistently sometimes given (and sometimes not) on Wikipedia, and DWB's footnotes approach might make Wikipedia more consistent for this film series as a whole. It might make sense to move this discussion to the Alien Talk page which started this film series as suggested by Canterbury Tail. (There is a copy on the Alien Talk page at this time.) HenryRoan (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Murphy, J. Kim (2023-11-28). "Alien: Romulus Star Cailee Spaeny Confirms New Entry Is Set Between the First Two Films". Variety. Retrieved 2023-12-31.

[1] Murphy, J. Kim (2023-11-28). "Alien: Romulus Star Cailee Spaeny Confirms New Entry Is Set Between the First Two Films". Variety. Retrieved 2023-12-31.

[1]

VOTE FOR A 1996 and 1998 PROJECT!

1996 - I decided to go with Scream, but I might take a look at some other suggestions just to tidy them up a little.

1998 Closed, a fairly obvious winner has emerged.

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

Promotion of Back to the Future

NPP message

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Style and content. Reference subgrouping?

Aliens FAC

Aliens rollback

My edition in Starship Troopers (1997) was undid by you

Review swap

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

September 2022

Review restore

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

The Dark Knight

Promotion of Aliens (film)

Batman Returns copyedit

Aliens (film)

Terminator 2 effects

New message from Sjones23

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Question/suggestion

Good job

Merry Merry!

Re: Aliens

The Dark Knight

Promotion of The Dark Knight

Gladiator Article for 2000 Featured Article Project.

Back to the Future scheduled for TFA

A barnstar for you!

Thanks for the Saving Private Ryan contributions

1996

Orphaned non-free image File:Campbellcoxarquette.jpg

Precious anniversary

Your reversion of my edit to "Raiders of the Lost Ark"

Stop it

Possible Sources for the Context section for your John Wick Project.

Orphaned non-free image File:Campbellcoxarquette.jpg

T2

Revised Scream Context section and possible Top section

Collaboration on Gladiator

Invitation to noticeboard

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saving Private Ryan/archive1

Your GA nomination of Seven (1995 film)

Your GA nomination of Seven (1995 film)

Found a article for Scream

TFA nom for Trading Places

John Wick (film)

DYK for Seven (1995 film)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

Promotion of Saving Private Ryan

Seven (1995 film)

Arkham Origins Set In 2013

Possible 1970s films for FA Project

Side Bar

Plot summary of The Kingdom

TFA

The Dark Knight scheduled for TFA

New message from Sjones23

FAC

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Box Office Data for pre-1991 films

Proposed clean up for Total Recall’s context section.

Film article lead sections

New pages patrol needs your help!

Reversal question

Proposed assistance to help finish Scream project

Promotion of Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Orphaned non-free image File:Scream-cast-at-fountain.jpg

Orphaned non-free image File:Visualeffectsscream1.jpg

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

1970s great film project and Daily Variety Reliable?

Nomination of Alternative versions of Joker for deletion

Casting

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

An Outside Opinion

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive