Talk:Austin Powers

Catchphrases
The line "i'm a sexy bitch" IS indeed a catchphrase, so its "vulgarity" cannot be used as a vallid reason for ommision. The film makers did change it in the third, likely to appeal to a wider audience, but the first two iconic films did feature the line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.251.228.10 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of catchphrases section
Many reasons for this. Most of them weren't correct. Bad use of lists. Not really relevant, as most of the important ones are included in the rest of the article. Can't remember any more... Ianbittiner 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviated Film Names
The names of the individual films are quite long and break up the text. I propose that they be referred to as AP1, AP2 and AP3. Barfbagger 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:10077085.jpg
Image:10077085.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Goldmember.png
Image:Goldmember.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Card Game
I've changed the name of the card game back. It was called "Austin Powers:The Spy Who Shagged Me". Decipher intended to release expansions covering the first and probably the third films but the game wasn't a success. All the stills on the cards as well as the secondary characters, missions etc are solely from the second film. Douglasnicol 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Irony of the character Austin Power
The physical appearance of Austin Power is everything that's about an unattractive male, which includes the hair, gestures, eye glasses (especially the thick black frame), and chest hair. Yet, the film portrayed him as "irresistible" to women. I think this should be added to the article, but I think it should be discussed before added. Lightblade 16:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm...maybe this should belong to the Austin Power (character) page. Lightblade 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Recurring jokes?
Whoever added this, do they *understand* that recurring means that the joke happens more than once either in the same film or spanning over multiple films. The listed "recurring jokes" are not all recurring, in fact only a couple actually were :-P SmUX 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC) i agree, somebody oughta clean up this section, quick, it makes the article seem, tacky. FloydNIN (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's nothing important. If you want to see the jokes of the movie, just see the movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.128.101.63 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Austin Powers 4
I know that there isn't a page for Austin Powers 4 but why do we have a link here that is just going to take the person that clicks on it back to this page? They would just be going in circles.

A Lone Gamer 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there going to be one? 172.206.44.173 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit my post. A Lone Gamer 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the movie IS offically coming in November, can someone make a page for it already?Onepiece226 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

There is no 'Austin Powers 4' coming in November, and as of yet no such project has been announced. This is Wikipedia not Wishipedia. When such a film is announced, then we can make a page! (Yakofujimato (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

I created an Austin Powers 4 page, as it has now been announced for 2013, and someone deleted it. (chrisj8910) (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Movie articles should not be created until they have started principal photography. There are many movies that are "announced" and never get any further. See WP:NFF. Austin Powers 4 has been announced many times, nothing real has happened. Barsoomian (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Latest rumours also came to nothing: Reports that Myers had signed a deal for the follow-up to 'Goldmember' are contradicted Aug 15 2011. "News broke over the weekend that Mike Myers was "signed, sealed, delivered" for "Austin Powers 4," the long-awaited follow-up to 2002's "Goldmember." HitFix confirmed that Myers had signed a deal to return to the franchise, but now Deadline New York is reporting otherwise. The entertainment website is saying that, despite Myers' interest in the project, no deal has been signed yet." Barsoomian (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Added link to IMDB post for Austin Powers 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.244.59 (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Movie is now listed on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1218992/ so I added it to the austin powers page (144.173.244.59 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC))


 * IMDB is not reliable. See WP:RS/IMDB: "The IMDb should be regarded as a questionable source, especially for future films. Its content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor." "Austin Powers 4" has been rumoured for 10 years. The IMDB page has been there since 2008 or earlier. They just push the date back every year. It's all just hot air. Barsoomian (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Original Sources = Original Research?
The whole Original Sources section appears to be based on speculation of the sources of scenes and characters, it needs some references or a good clean-up. e.g. I find it difficult to believe Demolition Man,released in 1993, is the inspiration for the thawing scene. Paulbrock (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That Original sources section later became the "Development" section, and thankfully it is a lot better sourced now than it was then, but the claims weren't wrong. Austin Powers clearly and deliberately parodies many films. It is the similarities to Demolition Man that prompted me to check these articles and see if it was mentioned, and I've no doubt the similarities are intentional, but don't take my word for it, Birth.Movies.Death. says: "It's Demolition Man, Time After Time, Diamonds Are Forever, Encino Man, and Blow-Up thrown into a blender". It might be difficult to be believe and it is easy to see parallels to other Rip Van Winkle type stories even if there are none, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. More importantly just because it is true doesn't mean it is WP:NOTABLE either, and not ever single reference to another film needs to be cataloged here. -- 109.77.196.143 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Pages were moved. Austin Powers → Austin Powers (character) and Austin Powers (disambiguation) → Austin Powers. The discussion bounced around but it was clear that the move as proposed did not have support. Lacking a primary topic this seems to be the consensus that was reached. Feel free to cleanup the hat notes. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Austin Powers (film series) → Austin Powers — Is this character really more notable than the actual series he appears in? Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Austin Powers → Austin Powers (character)


 * Support . Disambiguate. The film series is clearly primary topic here.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you consider a disambiguation page as I proposed below? It is not the primary topic. Is it not possible for a readers to type "Austin Powers" as shorthand for Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery? Not all fictional characters have their own article. It would be best to identify all possibilities. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, it probably should be disambiguated. As long the character isn't placed as primary topic, because that's clearly wrong.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it is not easy here to know what the reader wants. I would instead support rendering Austin Powers as a disambiguation page that lists the character article, the film series article, the films' articles (especially the first one), and articles in Category:Austin Powers games. "Austin Powers" should essentially be treated as open-ended. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify my stance, I oppose Austin Powers being the home to any given topic. I see that Austin Powers (disambiguation) was created, and I would like to see this moved instead to the main title. I do support the character article being moved to Austin Powers (character). Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per comment by Erik. JJ98 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, with a direct link to Austin Powers (character) in the hatnote. Powers T 02:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it's possible that readers looking for the first film would type "Austin Powers" shorthand as much as looking for the character himself or a quick list of all the films (as opposed to the film series article)? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's possible. But people searching for the first movie are likely to be equally interested in an article on the entire series, and in fact would probably prefer to read it first.  Ideally, the article ought to mention the films in the lede to make it easier to get to their articles, but that's an editorial decision.  Powers T 00:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If they're likely to be equally interested in a couple of articles, is the primary topic not supposed to be heads-and-heels above the others? I don't think that's evident here. The rule of thumb should be that the primary topic is self-evident, like Thomas Jefferson or Mars being clearly distinct from the secondary topics. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For me, at least, the calculus changes when the topics in question are all related. In that scenario, we should go with the most basic topic rather than specific refinements of it.  Powers T 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I honestly don't expect people to use Austin Powers for the movies. They'll either expect the character or, more likely, the film series as a whole. They might want the first movie, but there's no way they'll be using that to find the 2nd and 3rd movies unless they really don't know about the series and honestly believe there's only one movie. And they're not going to be looking for a list of Austin Power films rather than the Austin Powers film series article unless they don't know much about Wikipedia. The series as a whole is almost certainly what they'll be looking for if they only use Austin Powers, far more likely than the first movie at any rate. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible that a reader would not expect a film series article or a character article when they search for the first film shorthand. Most sequels have shorthand titles for redirects, and in this case, these redirects are Austin Powers 2 and Austin Powers 3. We rarely have redirects like Austin Powers 1, though. I think based on the redirect trend, there is a portion of readers who will expect a search of "Austin Powers" to take them to the article for the first film. There's no clear-cut primary topic here, IMO. I don't think an umbrella topic (the film series article, I suppose) qualifies. From the sound of the current support, the film series article is being treated as a detailed disambiguation page. We should keep it basic with a straightforward disambiguation page and let the reader choose where they want to go from searching the ambiguous term. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only articles there'll be looking for are the character, the series or the first film. Disambiguation isn't really needed in a case like this since we can simply use two hatnotes. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If we do it that way, then which article is truly the primary topic? WP:TWODABS says, "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that." I would not have a problem with a hatnote approach if there was a primary topic, but there is not one. No one article here has overwhelmingly greater likelihood of being sought out than the other two. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The series as a whole is still the primary topic over the first film. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how the primary topic is defined. The "series as a whole" is an umbrella topic, more encompassing of all franchise elements, but that has nothing to do with the primary topic. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box" (italics mine). As you said, readers will have different expectations in mind when searching for that term, so when that is the case, there is no primary topic. The "film series" is not heads-and-heels above the fictional character nor the first film. The primary topic is supposed to be an easy call; if it is not, a disambiguation page outlines all options for the reader. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support dabbing scheme and have created the proposed dab page at Austin Powers (disambiguation) (feel free to reorder). No clear primary topic and a dab page seems very useful here since everything on it may be of interest to someone searching for Austin Powers information. If the dab idea is implemented, as I would view the consensus lean here thus far, then simply move Austin Powers as requested to the character disambiguator name, move the page I created to Austin Powers, and make appropriate hatnotes. If something other than a dab page is the result, just G6 it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Austin Powers → Austin Powers (character) and Austin Powers (disambiguation) → Austin Powers. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aston Martin
Removed the suggestion that "The name Austin Powers is probably inspired by the British Aston Martin brand of motorcar which is almost synonymous with James Bond movies." This seems to me to be rather speculative, particularly when Austin was in fact a British motorcar company itself. Sir jcd (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mike Myers' dual nationality
Is there any proof that he has a dual citizenship (Ive heard he also has American citizenship as well)? Norum 03:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

casino royale and Austin Powers
in the Austin Powers movies there are more direct references to Casino Royale and spoofing Peter Sellers than spoofing the actual James Bond Movies. Specifically the 'Look of Love' scenes and the beautiful Burt Bacharach and Dusty Springfield soundtrack. There is no question that Mike Meyers was copying/spoofing Peter Sellers - especially rolling around on the bed in his sailor boy striped undergarments with Ursula! Too funny! Casino Royale deserves a lot of direct reference in the article. Woody Allen's Jimmy Bond was obviously the inspiration of 'Mini Me'. --76.19.199.2 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP doesn't allow editors to publish such analysis in articles. If it's just what you think, that's "original research". Find a reliable source that says that and it can be put in. Barsoomian (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Broken links on "Future"
Hello. Recently, I added new content on this page. The new content was about the future, including Austin Powers 4, but with broken source links. Could anyone correct/fix them, please. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.231.197 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Pages moved. Austin Powers (film series) → Austin Powers and Austin Powers → Austin Powers (disambiguation). (non-admin closure)  samee  talk 12:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Austin Powers (film series) → Austin Powers – The dabconcept tag has been on the disambig for a couple years, but we already have this film series article which satisfies this need as it already includes all the links on the dab page to the films, games, main character, and other related articles. WP:NCFILM recommends this approach of having a broad concept article about the franchise at the primary topic. -- Netoholic @ 07:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Per the current list at the disambiguation page, it seems that only the film series and the character have the name "Austin Powers" by itself, so a hatnote should suffice. Steel1943  (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shagadelic
Shagadelic is a redirect that points here, yet the word has no mention in the article. As the signature word of the whole series, it seems it should at least deserve a mention, right? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Freaky deaky Dutch" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freaky_deaky_Dutch&redirect=no Freaky deaky Dutch] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 16:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)