Talk:The Rocketeer (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Rocketeer (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 21, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Recent revision[edit]

I am willing to work on the article but there are some sections that were altered that need to be retained. For example, taking out a notes and bibliography section in favour of a further reading section is not consistent with the use of the individual source materials. I am about to add further details to this article based on a new reference source. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I tweaked the Notes/Reference section to keep it consistent with other film articles. If you have references cited throughout the article they belong in the References section. Anything else, that isn't cited (i.e. a novelization) should really put in another section usually called Further reading. You don't really divide it up into Notes and Bibliography under a general References section. I was just trying to clean-up the article a little bit.--J.D. (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Notes are a part of the references section and when you use other sources, they are part of a Bibliography and not a Further reading section which implies that these are ancillary sources. This style guide is employed in WP:Aviation and a format, see the use of Aviation:Films and the multiple uses within this category.

The use of this convention has been very carefully screened since a Swedish editor implemented it last year. It follows and fits MoS guides and has not been reverted even once (well, once- in the case of this article). Admins and other experienced editors use this format throughout the Aviation group. The reason for its implementation was the nonstandard use of references as a "catch-all section" when in fact they incorporated an endnotes or footnotes section and a bibliographical record. The Further reading section is just what it says, further to the article's research sources. My background is as a reference librarian and presently, author/editor for a number of publishing houses. See: 49th Parallel, A Wonderful Life, The Right Stuff and countless other film articles for examples of this use of referencing.

As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the The Rocketeer (film) article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "The Rocketeer (film)" citation/reference notes. The "true style" is primarily use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet. FWIW, you may have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations.

As to the website citations, the simplest system is all that is required as per Jeff's suggestion [1] FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. The simpler form should predominate, not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system.

Excuse the pedantic ranting, but I can follow up with more information on referencing on your talk page if your wish. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Filming locations[edit]

How was Bakersfield, California used in the production? Bzuk (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject Aircraft/page layout[edit]

Isn't this article, first and foremost a Film one and really should adhere to that format? The excess number of pictures and where they are located will never allow this film to be promoted to a higher status (GA, etc.). And if this is party of WikiProject Aircraft how come it's not stated as such on this page? Just my two cents.--J.D. (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five images on a page does not disqualify the article and this is the tag on the article: <-- This article is a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content for recommended layout. --> FWIW, this article should also be noted as a film article as well. As to image placement, there is a wide variety of choices to be made, and graphically, there are some problems with the images as such but "orphaning them" is not a good solution. Bzuk (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Headlines[edit]

- articles to help beef up this one.--J.D. (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Rocketeer (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Fun article to read. Below are my comments...

Under Intro:

  • "concepted with directing" Shouldn't this be "considered directing"?
  • Change "but was able to receive" to "but received"

Under Plot:

  • Could you change this wording to be a bit less ambiguous: "...and deceives the FBI agents with a vacuum cleaner."

Under Development:

  • "Disney originally placed The Rocketeer to be released by Touchstone Pictures." I'm not sure "originally placed" is the right wording here. Could you reword.

Under Production, Casting:

  • I'm sort of on the fence about whether this is worth including, but this source says Billy Campbell and Jennifer Connelly dated after meeting on the set, and director Johnston thinks it helped with their on-screen chemistry. Maybe this is worth tossing in after the mention about Connelly being cast in this section? Or maybe worth mentioning somewhere else in the article?

Under Filming:

  • I tripped over this sentence: "In an attempt to try and secure as much artistic control he could between Disney, Rocketeer creator Dave Stevens had to ally himself with director Joe Johnston and production manager Ian Bryce to be heavily inovlved in the production process." I'd suggest rewording it to something like this: "Rocketeer creator Dave Stevens allied himself with director Joe Johnston and production manager Ian Bryce in an effort to be as heavily involved in the production process as possible and to try and secure as much artistic control as he could from Disney."
  • "The original production budget was set at $25 million, but rose $40 million." I'm guessing you mean "rose TO $40 million," right? Right now, it reads the budget rose $40 million (like, from $25 to $65).

Under Design:

  • "Disney relented but still tried a couple of their own prototype designs that no one liked." The wording here doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. Maybe something more like, "Disney relented, but only after creating a number of prototype designs that were ultimately rejected by the filmmakers."
  • "Stevens told Johnston to give him a week and he would produce a helmet that looked good and that they could use." Again, not very encyclopedia. I think something like this would be better: "Stevens asked Johnston for one week to produce a good helmet design."
  • "They produced a helmet that worked and looked good from all angles." Again, sorry, but not very encyclopedia. I'd rather see something like, "They produced a helmet that the filmmakers agreed looked appropriate from all angles."
  • Somewhere in this article there should definitely be a mention that Rick Baker did the makeup for the Lothar character. If you need a citation for this, you can use Leonard Maltin, and I provided a citation for you under my Critical analysis suggestion below. I guess Design would be the right section for this, but if you have a better suggestion let me know.

Under Visual effects:

  • The Entertainment Weekly source mentions that the zeppelin explosion special effect alone cost $400,000 (unless I'm reading that incorrectly). Maybe that's worth including in this section?
  • That same source mentions that the whole zeppelin climax scene was filmed peacemeal over a four month process. I think that too is worth including in the article; if not here, then in filming.

Under Box Office:

  • "Rocketeer eventually grossed $46.7 million in US box office totals..." Not to be a stickler, but according to the source, it's $46.6 million, not $46.7.
  • "Rocketeer eventually grossed $46.7 million in US box office totals and was declared to be a box office bomb because the film was unable to recoup its $40 million budget." I'm a bit confused by this because you say it was unable to recoup it's $40 million budget, yet in the same sentence say it made $46.7 million, which EXCEEDS the budget amount. Do you mean that it didn't recoup the budget immediately? Or do you mean it didn't recoup the film budget and advertising budget together?
  • "When The Rocketeer was released in all other markets outside of the US and Canada, it was through Touchstone Pictures as opposed to Disney in an attempt to attract teenage audiences that was not done in North America." I tripped over the wording a bit here. Maybe something like, "Outside the US and Canada, The Rocketeer was released through Touchstone Pictures rather than Disney in order to attract a teenage audiences it did not reach in North America."

Under Critical analysis:

  • I think you are a bit heavier in here on the positive reviews than the negative ones. Maybe you could add some quotes or mentions from at least one more negative review, like the one here by Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader'?
  • It might be worth including Leonard Maltin's comments about the movie, if only because of how respected he is as a movie reviewer. I've written out the entire blurb he included in his movie guide here... "Campbell plays a rough-and-ready 1930s pilot who stumbles onto a sought-after secret weapon: an air-pack taht turns him into a rocket-man. Film captures the look of hte '30s, as well as the gee-whiz innocence of Saturday matinee serials, but it's talky--and takes too much time to get where it's going. Dalton has fun as a villain patterned after Errol Flynn. Film buffs will get a kick out of the Rondo Hatton-esque bad guy (couresy of makeup whiz Rick Baker)." This is the citation you can use, although I haven't tested it in Wikipedia so there could be a typo or something wrong with the code, but you can fix that easily: {{cite book |last1=Maltin |first1=Leonard |authorlink1=[[Leonard Malton]] |editor1-first=Cathleen |editor1-last=Anderson |editor1-link=Luke | editor2-first=Luke | editor2-last=Sader |title=Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide |edition=2004 Edition |year=2003 |month=October |publisher=[[Plume (publishing)|Plume]] |location=[[New York City]] |language=[[English language|English]] |isbn= 0451209400 |pages=pg. 1178-1179 }}

Under Sequel(s):

  • "Ever since Rocketeer creator Dave Stevens and screenwriters Danny Bilson and Paul De Meo set The Rocketeer at Disney in 1986, they all intended to make a trilogy." Could you reword to something like "'From the beginning of the process of making The Rocketeer, creator Dave Stevens and screenwriters Danny Bilson and Paul De Meo envisioned it was the first entry of a trilogy."
  • I think it might be worth throwing in based on this source that Billy Campbell said 18 years later that he still would have loved to have been in a sequel and, regarding the helmet, "My head hasnn't gotten any bigger." I'm not married to this addition, so if you don't agree with it, that's ok.
Thank you with that GA review. I have addressed every concern, but, sorry I do not really think that the last comment for the "Sequel(s) section is noteworthy enough. What do you think? Also, thank you for paying attention to my edits I made and for tracking my progress (using the <s></s> thing was genius). Keep up the great work. Wildroot (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, I was on the fence about it myself too. Nice job, this was a fun one to review~

A good article is:

  1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
  4. Neutral: Yes.
  5. Stable: Yes.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Errol Flynn as a Nazi Sympathizer[edit]

This article makes a claim about rumors of Errol Flynn as a Nazi sympathizer. However, the source cited says nothing of the sort, it just states that Dalton's character was based on Errol Flynn. If you look this up in Wikipedia's article on Errol Flynn, this controversy is acknowledged and the eventual conclusion of the sources is that these claims were a fabrication of the author of a biography of Errol Flynn. I think that part of this article needs to be cleaned up. This controversy is definitely related to the film, but this article definitely displays a bias. (76.199.157.6 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Accident on set[edit]

The article mentions Cliff's visit to the movie set as being the cause of a lead actor's accident. I don't remember getting that sense from the film; the guy was stabbed. I thought Jenny was fired because Cliff managed to destroy a big chunk of the scenery. Is the idea here that Cliff's presence caused Sinclair to be distracted, resulting in his stabbing Charlie? ...I didn't think the other actor's injury was significant except to characterize Sinclair as a benevolent, generous type--after stabbing the other guy, he asked someone to take the injured man to a hospital in his own car.

None of this crap matters, of course, but I'm curious. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft in film[edit]

It's asserted that the plane Cliff flies (and gets gifted with at the end of the film by Howard Hughes) is a Gee Bee Model R. But if you look at this page – http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Explorers_Record_Setters_and_Daredevils/Gee_Bees/EX23G1.htm – you'll see that the film's plane is actually a Gee Bee Model Y or a modification thereof. The Model R is short and fat where the Y is longer and leaner. Theonemacduff (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article[edit]

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trivia content[edit]

"Shaky-cam"[edit]

For the climactic zeppelin scenes, a "Shaky-cam" mechanism was invented, the opposite of a steadycam: it gave the pictures shot inside the airship a trembling, vibrating quality intended to convey the sense of intense machinery operating.

The effect did not transfer well to video, and pictures were steadied again for video release.[2]


The Nostalgia Critic placed the film as #9 on his list of The Top 11 Underrated Nostalgia Classics.[3]

  1. ^ The Rocketeer Full credits
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ Top 11 Underrated Nostalgia Classics

I removed this content from the article because an IMDB trivia source is not a reliable source. I also removed the Nostalgia critic part because it is from a comedic website. If more reliable sources can be obtained please move the information back to the article. --Peppagetlk 14:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference styles[edit]

I gave up on this article when a number of IPs decided to replace the style guide in use. I am now trying to provide a consistent style that is based on Harvard citations for cites and a Modern Language Association style guide for a a social sciences (history) based article. See the following: Preceding incorrect form: John B. Cooke. "An Interview with Dave Stevens". Comic Book Artist. http://twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/15stevens.html. Retrieved 2009-02-01. New format: Cooke, Jon B. (transcribed by Sam Gafford). "Rocketeer creator Dave Stevens on his life as an artist." Comic Book Artist #15 via tomorrows.com. Retrieved: October 31, 2010. The first form did not get the author, title, publisher or date right. After looking at other citations and bibliographic notations, I noted many other errors of transposing authors, putting author names out of order, not listing dates in the style of the article, not listing publishers and on and on.

As to the article revisions, the style that has been does not correspond with either a Harvard citation or other style that I recognize as well, the <cite> template introduces errors in formatting. Likewise, the APA template style chosen for the bibliography has a number of errors in it. I do not understand the predilection for rewriting citations that are correctly formatted by replacing them with templates that are not, or that have errors. Just one thing that drives me batty is the use of templates to replace correctly formatted citations and bibliographies. That was never the intention of templates which was merely an aid for those editors unfamiliar with or unable to provide reference sourcing through "scratch editing." If you wanted to do one thing to improve the referencing- look at any of the bibliographical notations and try to correct the numerous errors of omission and formatting. Start with the simple precept that titles are written in "title" form not sentence form. Due to my "wanting" to start all over, I respectfully will not participate in the rewriting of the article and wait until the process of review is finished.
You have to remember that most of this "guff" is coming from a reference librarian with 30 years+ in the trenches, as well as a lengthy stint as an editor for publishing houses as well as being an author of 10 books. The titles have now been correctly written but if you are following a consistent: "Author, Title, Place of publishing, Publisher, Date (ISBN is entirely an aberration of Wikiworld)" style whether MLA, Chicago or even the quasi-APA style guide which the templates are using, then you are still missing information. The reason I abhor the templates is that whoever wrote them has introduced their own version of a bibliographic style guide which does not correspond exactly to any that are already in use but closest to APA, but with numerous errors built in.
Now that the article has passed its GA requirements, I would like to revise the referencing to correct multiple errors, most of them imbedded in the cite templates that were used.
Please take the following comment as constructive criticism not "carping." I have been slowly laying out the parameters of a Referencing 101 primer for others in various edit comments. I come by this knowledge by dint of 30+ years as a reference librarian and for neophytes to attempt to master the vagaries of bibliographic notation, it is almost an impossible task, and that is why templates have been used for decades in cataloging. However, these templates were scrupulously developed and contain none of the multiple errors in the Wikipedia citation templates. I have tried for years to get the developers to make a stab at dealing with the formatting errors. The response was a steadfast refusal to even discuss the issue.

In a few words, the issues are:

  1. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers.
  2. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and newcomers (certainly not you!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
  3. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
  4. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
  5. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
  6. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded.

Dave, please contact me for more information on the @%$#*# cite templates which I tried fruitlessly years ago to have their developers revise into the more standard publishing format of the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide, most often used in the referencing of biographies, histories (film articles such as the The Rocketeer (film)) and social sciences. I established the MLA style guide for the bibliographic notations of the The Rocketeer article so that further submissions would have a consistent style guide to follow. The actual cites themselves are written in Harvard Citation style of "author(s) (last name only) date (most recent publishing date), page accession format."

BTW, I can rewrite the cite templates into proper formatting, but it takes so much editing that it isn't worth it, so I find that writing in text is the easiest and most efficient solution: simple, identify all the key elements of the reference notation: author, title, publisher, date. FWiW, I really appreciate your efforts to support film articles and consider myself "in your corner." Bzuk (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I fully understand fixing missing or malformed contents, but that's an issue of input, not actual formatting. The MoS proscribes the simplest solution to deciding what referencing style to use as the one that the first editor to use a scrutable citation scheme uses; in this case, it was User:Erik, who happened to use templates. I also understand your distate with citation templates, but the point remains that all your issues are with citation templates in the Grand Order of Things™. It doesn't make sense to argue via editing on an article-by-article basis. Ultimately, it's a matter of what is better-liked by who, and citation templates, by pissing off most people, can be seen as the perfect compromise to all the style guides. They are pretty much all equally arbitrary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dave it was a dispute over styles that caused me to back off for years from this article, but in looking at the references recently, not one seemed to be done correctly. And MOS does not recommend nor prescribe the use of citation templates, as I have already indicated in a statement in the "string". For me to rewrite each template to correct the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome takes longer and is less effective than simply writing out the ref correctly in the first place. I waited until the FA cycle was over before I attempted an overhaul. Besides, so many of the sections are now being revised and simply reverting makes no sense when you eliminate legitimate corrections. Look back on the edit history and you will see this reference style in use with the first major revision that I made; I simply got tired of fighting over non-consequential issues and moved this article from my watch list. With all the many errors inherent in the article, it should have received much closer scrutiny, however, it is what it is. I am proposing to keep the content essentially the same, but to correct the errors in bibliographic notation in the most effective way by using "in the clear" cataloging and referencing that can be easily revised by other editors. Many editors have no concept about what to input into a citation template and this article was a prime fascia case of that happening with consequent errors in output. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I still think you're misdirecting your frustrations here, but I'm not going to be a major stickler about this point. Do as you want. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D, since we seem to be the only ones here "on the beat"; I have left you a note on your talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moviola effects?[edit]

"Speeded-up Moviola effects were also used to advantage..."

A Moviola is a device used to view running film through a magnifying lens, rather than projecting it. It was at one time commonly used by editors. I am at a loss to understand what a "Moviola effect" is. Does the writer mean that parts of the finished film looked as if they were being viewed with a Moviola? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to use[edit]

Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 18:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A podcast of the talk is also available, if anyone wants to use it in the article - [2]. I think you can use cite video or cite episode for it. - JuneGloom Talk 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"typical use for film articles"[edit]

Re: this edit, Bzuk, I'm not in agreement. I don't see wiklinks for "Theatrical release poster" at Jurassic World, Mad Max: Fury Road, Jupiter Ascending, Citizen Kane, Inside Out (2015 film), Blade Runner, Casablanca (film), Mulholland Drive (film) or Alien vs. Predator (film) just to name a few randomly selected films, some of which are FAs. It's a common concept, we don't need the extra blue links. We also don't need the carriage return, and we don't need the capital T. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And your counter, as we work toward consensus is...? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The use of film poster wikilink has been in place for many articles and is a common way of differentiating from lobby cards, advertising or other type of illustration. Caution that we are getting into Lame territory. Is this really a big issue for you? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Rocketeer (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Rocketeer (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Web Archive[edit]

I decided to check the Web Archive specifically the The Magazine Rack and quickly found a few things:

I was looking for something else so I haven't read them in any detail and I could have kept searching for more sources but maybe there is something there that could be useful. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wings of Honor[edit]

Early in the film, Cliff and Jenny go to see a film (her choice) called Wings of Honor, a billboard for which Cliff had flown over in the opening sequence and which the gang at the Bulldog Cafe picks apart later on. Given the year in which Rocketeer takes place (1938) and that the villain Neville Sinclair was based on real-life actor Errol Flynn (complete with supposed Nazi sympathies), the film must be Dawn Patrol.

2603:301F:E01:7C00:A8B6:5548:684:883C (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

censor rating[edit]

No reference to the censer rating and why 124.197.53.159 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMRATINGS are not normally included. -- 109.77.196.25 (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source suggestions[edit]

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rocketeer_(film)&oldid=1193774101"