Talk:Production of Watchmen (film)

Lead
Ok, the first thing that you need to do is introduce the subject. The lead jumps right into the meat of the article topic, but doesn't explain what Watchmen is. See the opening paragraph for Characters of Smallville? It begins by explaining what the show is in the first couple lines. So, I would start by explaining what the story of Watchment is. Since this page is about the task of translating the comic to the silver screen, and not soley just production info on the film, it would be important to identify that original concept (i.e. a 12 issue graphic novel). After introducing your primary subject, I would go into identifying what this article is about, and then just summarize each of the parts. Here is a quick example, that could probably be tweaked over time. Watchmen is a twelve-issue comic book limited series created by writer Alan Moore, artist Dave Gibbons, and colorist John Higgins. The series was published by DC Comics between 1986 and 1987. The storyline focuses on the struggles of the protagonists as an investigation into the murder of a government sponsored superhero pulls them out of retirement and eventually leads them to confront a plot to stave off nuclear war by killing millions of people. The graphic novel's film rights were acquired by producer Lawrence Gordon in 1986, but the film adaptation was met with problems over the course of the next twenty-three years, until finally being adapted by Zack Snyder in 2009. Ok, so this can be used to introduce your primary subject. I would then use subsequent paragraphs to summarize each basic point where the studio failed to get the film off the ground, what changes were made, the final success and then the litigation afterwards (along with the outcome). Work up a couple of follow up paragraphs for the lead, that summarize each section of the article, and I'll take a look and see what can be tweaked/reworded/added/deleted.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN
this should go to wp:gan. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested move (2011)

 * 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. 

Page moved to Production of Watchmen (film). Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Production of Watchmen → Production of the Watchmen film – Or somesuch. Watchmen is about the comic, so this title implies that it's about making the comic (which would be an interesting article), but the film is at Watchmen (film). Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Current title is misleading as it implies the article is about the comic. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I think Erik's suggestion of Production of Watchmen (film) is equally acceptable. Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I recommend moving to Production of Watchmen (film). With article italics, it will look like "Production of Watchmen (film)". I don't strongly feel that it needs to be moved, though -- "production" seems film-oriented to me. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support moving to "Production of Watchmen (film)" since I've realized that if we have other sub-articles that could be ambiguous (e.g., "Reception of Watchmen"), it would be an inconsistent set of sub-articles to have some with the disambiguation term and some without. Seems best to make it all consistent by including the disambiguation term. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Response I agree--they should be renamed pending the end of this discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: If this is moved, where should the resulting redirect at Production of Watchmen point? If to Production of Watchmen (film), then the disambiguator seems unnecessary to me. After all, we don't have an article for the production of any of the other works titled Watchmen. Even if it's not clear from the title which work the article is about, we usually don't add disambiguators in article titles unless there's an actual naming conflict. Jafeluv (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2011 (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.

Requested move (2012)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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. 

The result of the move request was: page moved as requested and per WP:PRECISION. When title qualifiers are needed, we have consistent ones to use, but we don't apply them where the unqualified title is sufficient just for consistency. If fuller description is needed in the title to match its WP:COMMONNAME, it should be "Film production of Watchmen" or "Production of the film Watchmen" or something, but I don't think the common name is different.-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Production of Watchmen (film) → Production of Watchmen – This article was moved to the current title (with the "(film)" disambiguator) in a previous discussion. I am suggesting that this article be moved back to the original title for two reasons. Firstly, Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the decision to disambiguate state that article titles should only be provided with disambiguators when "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" (italics mine). There are no other existing Wikipedia articles that could be referred to by the title "Production of Watchmen," therefore the guidelines are against disambiguation. Secondly, the current title (with the disambiguator) is more misleading than the original title, because it suggests that there is a film called Production of Watchmen. The disambiguator does not apply to the entire title, and it does not serve the purpose of disambiguating. The original title should be restored. Neelix (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is about Watchmen (film), and not the comic or any other type of Watchmen, and is a subsidiary article, so should match the main article's naming. Further, this is a descriptive title, so should match the main article, since it is not a set term referring specifically to the subject. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not how disambiguators work. I agree that the subsidiary article should match the main article's naming, but the disambiguator is not part of that naming; disambiguators are separate entities that do not get transferred to subsidiary articles. Neelix (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's just bureaucratic and unhelpful practice. If articles don't match the main article, confusion reigns supreme. Since the comic book article covers the production of the comic book, then "Production of Watchmen" should redirect to the comic book article, as it covers that concept as well. If a separate article on the production of the comic book were written, would it need to sit at Production of Watchmen (comic) and some discussion about primary use of "production of Watchmen" need to be instituted to see which production article were primary? And the motion comic was also made, so could also have a production article... 70.24.247.54 (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason that neither of those possible topics have articles is that they aren't sufficiently notable. The graphic novel is notable, but the production of the graphic novel as a topic unto itself is not; there isn't even a production section on the Watchmen article, because, for graphic novels, "production" simply means the physical manufacturing of the books. As far as I am aware, the word "production" has no standard meaning in the context of a motion comic. "Production" is primarily a filmmaking term, so the production of the film is the primary topic. Far from being less confusing, it is more confusing to include the disambiguator in the title for the reasons I outline in the nomination. Neelix (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:PRECISION, though not a perfect fit with descriptive titles, appears relevant by analogy. The title of the main article is most distinctly Watchmen, with a disambiguator add-on, which is not just bureaucratic but fundamental to what a parenthetical disambiguator is. It is a parenthetical after all. As for confusion, no one will see the main title and then decide to search for "production of..." I cannot think of a route to finding this article where the lack of the parenthetical would cause confusion. If you could actual map out a concrete scenario where the non-matching would present a barrier, that would go a long way.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support While appreciating the point about titling consistency, this seems an unfortunate case of the clashing of modifiers describing subordinate concepts. Production of Watchmen has the benefit of being consistent with established practice, as described in WP:PRECISION, as well as obviating the potential confusion with a Production of Watchmen work. Not a perfect solution, true, and some may need to click through the title link to see the article in order to clarify status, but that could happen with either title, and since most readers (as opposed to editors) will probably be accessing the page through piped links from contexts implying the film version (e.g. the "Film development" link in the Watchmen template), the likelihood of readers being confused by the absence of a parenthetical (film) is probably low. ENeville (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Production of Watchmen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929083201/http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/hollywood/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001700508 to http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/hollywood/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001700508
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060105145306/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/thr/film/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000584187 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000584187

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Production of Watchmen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090101041731/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i2f608e22d68972d4c6a6b7e72b2048cf to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i2f608e22d68972d4c6a6b7e72b2048cf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090707072722/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i2079648bd224e2c8075db99d3217979a to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i2079648bd224e2c8075db99d3217979a

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Production of Watchmen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://movieblog.ugo.com/movies/japanese-watchmen-trailer-reminds-us-why-the-studios-are-bickering
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229210143/http://watchmen.warnerbrosrecordsstore.com/prod.aspx?pfid=1839150 to http://watchmen.warnerbrosrecordsstore.com/prod.aspx?pfid=1839150
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019041931/http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/mwop/moviefile/2008/10/alan-moore-endorsed-watchmen-m.php to http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/mwop/moviefile/2008/10/alan-moore-endorsed-watchmen-m.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)