Talk:The Dark Crystal/Archive 4

sequel
More information on the potential sequal is found here. The article was merged here after a failed deletion vote, and much of the material was lost. 69.138.168.37 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That information was deliberately "lost" because it was not properly sourced, and the movie has not moved forward in several years. More, lots more talk about this in the archive. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After nearly two years of no new news, the "official" blog finally got a new post on it however, all it says is that they have moved out of pre-production. I also note that IMDB lists a different director, not surprising since this has been in development hell for so long, but we need a better source to back that up. There's a trailer on YouTube, but its comprised almost entirely of storyboard art. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

specific names for the Mystics and Skeksis
The movie never, ever provides names for the Mystics, either as individuals or as a race; the only Mystic singled out in dialogue is Jem's mentor, whom he refers to only as "Master." Yet the previous version of this article repeatedly referred to the Mystics and Skeksis by specific names which never appear in the film. Where does this information come from? Supplementary information like books, comics, and the like. This article is about the movie, though, and within the movie, there is no canonical reference to names for the Mystics. At most their names provided by supplementary materials should receive a footnote that makes it clear that such information comes from extracontextual sources, but within the plot and character descriptions, it's misleading to refer to the Mystics and Skeksis as Urru or Goldar the Alchemist or whatever, when such information is completely unsupported by the film itself. Minaker (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry for the slow response. This article is just a tiny corner of what was at one point a rather large pile of articles dealing with every tiny aspect of the Dark Crystal "universe." As such a lot of "crufty" content has wandered into it as the other articles were deleted or merged here. I fully support removing these details as you are quite correct that they are not in the movie, which is the subject of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The names are, strangely enough, given in the credits of the film. 90.198.74.33 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added in the descriptions with the specific names. They're also listed on the Characters and races of the Dark Crystal page, so i didn't add a reference. i can change that if needed. Kethryvis (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

vampires
The article on vampires says: "Vampires are mythological or folkloric beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence (generally in the form of blood) of living creatures, regardless of whether they are undead or a living person.    "

It seems rather obvious that the skeksis fit this definition, and hence fall under the relevant category.


 * According to wp:category how an article is categorized depends on how the category page is defined. The category vampires in film is a subcategory of vampires in fiction which links to the article vampires which defines them as "beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence (generally in the form of blood) of living creatures, regardless of whether they are undead or a living person."  The article refers to the Skeksis feeding on the life essence.


 * This is very simple. If there is a better category, please point to it.  If the article vampire is poorly written, feel free to edit it.  But the category vampire is a broad one and it includes things besides dead Romanian dictators who wear capes and turn into bats.  μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I repeat myself. The argument is not made that skeksis are bat men with Romanian accents, but that the category Vampires in film (defined by the article as beings of any kind which live off the life essence) is useful to readers looking for such creatures and appropriate so long as no better category exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 05:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot
This is a rather large article. The plot section counts for only a fifth of its length--and to be told, some of the plot section is actually back story which could go elsewhere. Noting is harmed by the current description. Adding a tag demanding that it be shortened--by others--is, frankly, patronizing and unhelpful. Those who think they can shorten the plot section without deleting relevant material are invited to try to do so themselves. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked for input on this at WT:FILMS because I thought I might be missing something in interpreting your remarks. Frankly, I find the repeat removal of a valid maintenance tag that I use with some degree of regularity to find the stuff I'm planning to edit rather confusing.  I tag stuff and then go trim it out (unless someone beats me to it) when I'm on my own PC.  I don't get this assumption of "expecting someone to do it for them".  Yes other editors beat me to articles I tag sometimes but I use those tags that I personally place to loop back on stuff in the long run.  I've probably trimmed more of my own plot tags than anyone else has.


 * The plot is 1300 words. That's approximately a four page essay.  Guidelines suggest we shoot for 700 as an approximate uppermost limit. I DO expect the plot for this article to go over usual guidelines as noted at WP:FILMPLOT regarding length and exceptions:

''Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.'' (my bolding)


 * I'd guess, without doing the typical type of first pass I do on major plot trims, that this will land in the 800-850 mark. But 1300 is wildly off the mark, the tag is standard maintenance, and the related category is used (though I'll grant not as often as it could be) by plot trimmers looking for stuff to do.  Millahnna (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then trim it. You waste bytes to meet an arbitrary goal with no policy support.  That tag has been there on and off for years with the summary never once decreasing in length.  In comparison your complaints have no value. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As I just said, I will when I am back in front of my own PC in a day or twp. I place plot tags on articles with the express purpose of eventually looping back to them to trim.  Sometimes I hit the backlog in the articles with plot summaries needing attention category, first if I can spot stuff in it that I'm familiar enough with to work on.  But I always loop back to my own plot tags if no one beats me to it.  Which, again, I've already said.  I don't see a valid policy removal for removing the tags.  They exist for a purpose, which I use them for.  With that thought in mind I'm going to restore the plot tag, so that it will available on my to do list when I have time this weekend for some "sit down and plod through plots" time. Millahnna (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Medeis, there is policy support. WP:PLOT is policy that says not to have summary-only descriptions of works, and it continues, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary" (emphasis mine). WikiProject Film has interpreted "concise" to mean between 400 and 700 words. The goal of the summary is to provide context for the rest of the article, which is coverage from secondary sources about the work. Being able to read about only the film itself is incidental; it is not an explicit goal on this encyclopedia. Really, there should be a Movie Wikia where there can be lengthy plot descriptions, like there are wikias for fictional universes that ultimately allows Wikipedia articles about topics in these universe to have real-world context. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:EGG
WP:EGG is a very clear and simple guideline. There's no need to quote it here, because the upshot of it is perfectly clear: people need to know where they are going when they click on a link. No one knows that they're going to go to Vampire when they click on a "draining Kira's life essence's" link. Ergo, it needs to be delinked. The edit comments by Medeis ("you don't remove the link because the piping is indirect" and "the linked article is the most relevant to the phenomenon given the term's definition") are not relevant, nor proper excuses for a piped link. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:EGG applies here. One cannot tell from that the link is supposed to go to something about vampires. It could be an article about blood-sucking for all I know. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. I think that if Medeis really feels a need to link to Vampire here, then the appropriate thing to do would be to add it in a see also section. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The guideline (not policy) simply says, "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. ... If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." Vampire is the only general article we have on creatures which feed off life essences .  See the first sentence of Vampire: ...beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence...  The link does make sense.  And nowhere does it say that such pipelined links must be removed. Please explain how the link does not make sense and please show where there is a requirement that such links be removed. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Medeis, there is no point in trying refute things that no one has said. No one said that WP:EGG is policy. Nor is there is any point in quoting the guideline selectively, to try to make tendentious points. Remember the part that reads, "make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." No one, or almost no one, would expect that "draining Kira's life essence" would go to Vampire, and the fact that one definition (not the definition most people would use) is that a vampire is something that drains life essences doesn't change that. The link may "make sense" to you, but it's not going to make sense to 99% of readers, and it's that kind of making sense that the guideline is concerned with. The bottom line is that "draining Kira's life essence's" shouldn't be linked to Vampire because there's no reason to link it at all. Add a link as a see also, if you must. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of "eventually" in the plot section
To start I have no intention of actually editing the article, but the word "eventually" is seems overused in the article's plot section. Many times the use of the word is redundant and could either be taken out of the sentence or perhaps replaced with a synonym where necessary. Feel free to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.150.25 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I have successfully vanquished all of the "eventually"s from the Plot section, and done some other clean-up besides (including removing a few excessive details). Qwyrxian (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

References and Plot issues
I am considering the use of The World of the Dark Crystal as a inline source. I feel that mentioning the TWoDC are unnecessary and we should use page numbers for the source in question. Also, I am seriously concerned about the plot section as a whole. If we should expand the plot, we should always comply with the WP:FILMPLOT guideline. Also, we can expand the article using the books provided in the references section, but that would require trying to find pages to it. Are there any comments or objections? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you (or anyone else) can, then by all means use the sources in the "Reference" section to expand the article; that's why I compiled the list in the first place, hoping that somebody would utilise them for just that purpose. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

GA/FA Push
I am considering taking this to GA or FA status. See Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) and Blade Runner for examples of such high-quality articles. Here's what we need to do:
 * Lead section: expand up to three or four paragraphs.
 * Plot section: looks good, but we can add book sources for it and we need to trim it down to below 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT.
 * Production section: needs to be expanded upon with sources from it.
 * References: - needs pages for books if we can cite them.
 * Reception: - needs to be expanded upon as well.

All are welcome to assist in this process. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO the plot section needs work. All those references to a book and other in-depth stuff about the background of the fictional world don't come from the film, so they don't belong in a summation of the film's plot. This is expanded-universe stuff best left to an article about the book or the characters. For the film article, stick to what's presented in the film. I've got the film on DVD, so I may take a crack at tightening up the plot summary. I've got some experience at revising plot summaries where necessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree that background information from the companion book to the movie, written by Brian Froud who basically created the movie along with Jim Henson, is not worthy of inclusion (it's not equivalent to "expanded universe stuff" in a franchise like Star Wars, for example). Note that Manual of Style/Film says: "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." Plus, if this info was deemed out-of-bounds than all the names of individual Skeksis and Mystics, along with the name "UrSkeks" for the merged versions, would have to be removed too, since it doesn't appear in the movie. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I do think the names of the Skeksis/Mystics should be removed. None of them are referred to by these names in the film, nor are they listed by these names in the credits (they're "Chamberlain", "General", "The Master", etc.). I'm not making a judgment about what's "worthy of inclusion", I'm judging what's pertinent. Since this is a summary of the plot of the film, it should stick to stuff that's presented in the film. The name of the fantasy world, the names of the Skeksis/Mystics, etc. aren't ever presented in the film. So a reader being presented all this stuff in the plot summary and comparing it to a viewing of the film could be confused. The companion book can certainly be discussed in another section, perhaps one dealing with the merchandising tie-ins (the book being an item sold in conjunction with the film's marketing and promotion). In such a section one could mention the further elements and backstory provided by Froud. However, since these elements aren't part of the film itself, they don't belong in a plot summary of the film.
 * I watched the film yesterday (it'd been years since I'd watched it) and worked up a version of the plot summary that addresses these issues. I'll continue tweaking it later and put it up for consideration. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose it depends on the interpretation of that line from wikipedia's manual of style. Perhaps it's more plausible that the intention was that secondary sources could be used when they clarified aspects of the plot that were present in the film but might be confusing to many viewers, rather than story elements intended by the creators but not included in the film. If it's removed from the summary, it might be good to at least put it in a new section as you suggested. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I certainly think discussion of the book merits inclusion, but in a different section rather than intermingled with the film's plot summary. I don't think this is a case where the plot is complicated enough that it requires secondary sources to clarify it for readers. This is a relatively straightforward fantasy story. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the plot summary has been revised. Here's an alternate version I whipped up for consideration. It's 100 words shorter than the current version (557 vs. 656).

A once-prosperous fantasy world fell into strife when the magical crystal sustaining it cracked and a shard was lost. At this time, two new races appeared: the cruel Skeksis and the gentle Mystics. The Skeksis took control of the castle housing the Dark Crystal and have ruled for a thousand years, sustaining themselves through its power. The Mystics live peacefully in a faraway valley. Only ten members of each race remain, and both the Skeksi emperor and the Mystic elder lie on their deathbeds.

Jen, a Gelfling taken in by the Mystics after the Skeksis killed his clan, is told by the Mystic elder that he is prophesied to find the missing crystal shard. If he fails to do so before the world’s three suns align, the Skeksis will rule forever. The Mystic elder and the Skeski emperor die simultaneously. This prompts a confrontation between the Skesis Chamberlain and General over the throne, with the victorious General banishing the Chamberlain. The Dark Crystal shows the Skeksis a vision of Jen, and they send their Garthim—large crablike soldiers—to kill him.

Jen locates the astronomer Aughra and learns of the "Great Conjunction", a celestial event occuring every thousand years that could mean the end of the world. He acquires the crystal shard, but the Garthim attack and Aughra is taken prisoner. Jen escapes and meets Kira, a fellow Gelfling who was raised by forest dwellers called Podlings and can talk to animals. The Skeksis send their Crystal Bats in search of Jen, tracking him to the Podling village. The Gartham attack and take the Podlings prisoner, but Jen and Kira escape when the Chamberlain prevents the Gartham from killing them.

Jen and Kira discover the ruins of a Gelfling city, where Jen finds the prophecy stating that he must heal the Dark Crystal by reinserting the missing shard. The Chamberlain unsuccessfully attempts to convince them that he wants to broker a peace with the Gelflings. Jen and Kira ride Landstriders—rabbit-like mounts—to the castle. The Skeksis are using the Dark Crystal’s energy to turn the Podlings into mindless slaves and drain their life essence, consuming it to temporarily restore their own youth. The Gelflings infiltrate the castle’s lower levels and are confronted by the Chamberlain, who captures Kira and causes a cave-in on Jen. As a reward, he is restored to his former position. The Skeksis try to drain Kira’s essence, but she calls upon the animals imprisoned in the laboratory to attack her captor. When he falls to his death, one of the Mystics—who have been making their way to the castle—also vanishes.

Jen survives and makes his way to the crystal chamber, where the Skeksis are gathering for the Great Conjunction. Kira arrives there as well, and they are attacked by the Gartham. Jen leaps atop the Dark Crystal but drops the shard. Kira retrieves it and throws it to him, but is killed by the General. Jen inserts the shard into the crystal just as the suns align and the Mystics enter the chamber. With the crystal whole again, the Podlings’ essences are restored. The Skeksis and Mystics merge into single magical beings and explain that their split into two races was caused by their cracking of the crystal. They restore Kira to life as the crystal’s power rejuvenates the land.

--IllaZilla (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That will work. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While this version is more efficient in its use of words, and some of the sentences are better-worded, I think there were also some things done better by the previous version, so I would suggest either going back to that one and revising sentences on more of a case-by-case basis, or doing a bunch of revisions to this one. The issues I would point to with this version: 1) I think it was good that the previous version had brief physical descriptions of the various races, such as "vulture-like" for the Skeksis and "elf-like" for the Gelflings, since they would be unfamiliar to a reader who hadn't seen the movie. 2) I don't think Jen's Master should be referred to as the "Mystic elder", there was no indication that he was any older than the other Mystics (they were all created a thousand years ago, though I suppose the urSkek he was created from might have been older than the others), though he was referred to as the "wisest" of them. 3) is Aughra an "astronomer"? She tracks the movements of the heavens but she may just be doing it for help with prophecy, not out of scientific interest, and the movie doesn't indicate that she built the orrery herself (in The World of the Dark Crystal, Aughra says that "the urSkeks taught me knowledge; they built for me the great Observatory that I might see all the paths of the World"). Also, it's never really made clear the "Great Conjunction" is the same as the moment when "the world’s three suns align" mentioned earlier (though the previous version of the article doesn't really make it clear either) 4) No mention of Fizzgig, or of Jen and Kira's discovery of their telepathic connection, or of the later role of that connection in helping inspire Kira to call the animals. 5) Isn't it better to mention the fact that the Mystics begin making their way to the castle when it's first shown in the movie, rather than mentioning it as an aside later? 6) No mention of the fact that the Great Conjunction will grant the Skeksis immortality, as indicated by one of them saying "The Great Conjuction comes--now we will live forever!" 7) The Skeksis who kills Kira is not actually the General, in the next wide shot after Jen yells "Kira" you can see the General to the left of the one in red who stabbed her. 8) Though the tall glowing beings at the end (the restored urSkeks) do say "we are again one", indicating that the Skeksis and Mystics had been a result of their being split, they don't actually say the cracking of the crystal was the cause of the split, and this is contradicted by supplementary material like The World of the Dark Crystal, which says that they first accidentally split themselves in a failed attempt to purify themselves, then immediately afterwards, one of the newly-created Skeksis attacked the crystal and cracked it. This origin story is actually reflected in the movie, in a brief scene where Jen is wandering through the forest (shortly before encountering Fizzgig) and he looks into the shard and sees a vision of a Skeksis attacking a white version of the Dark Crystal (indicating that it was whole, just like after Jen healed it and it turned white) with some kind of weapon, followed by crack marks appearing over the image (this scene might be worth mentioning in the summary--it's brief, but like the scene of the Mystic disappearing when a Skeksis is killed, it does tell you something significant about the mythology). Hypnosifl (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot section
User:Medeis recently restored a trivial detail to the plot section of this article, with the comment, "this is a comprehensive encyclopedia." I am aware that Wikipedia is "a comprehensive encyclopedia"; I have never suggested otherwise. That does not mean that Wikipedia articles are meant to be repositories of every single trivial fact that could possibly be mentioned about their subjects. I would ask User:Medeis to please read WP:UNDUE. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of something called a cause of death? Or a murder weapon?  How she died is of course of interest to our readers, and hardly trivial.  I would suggest to user:cobweb that condescension is hardly a substitute for common sense. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a reader of Wikipedia (as well as an editor) and this detail is of little interest to me. I certainly don't think it deserves mention in the plot section. Plot sections simply cannot contain every detail that might be of "interest" to someone, otherwise they would have to mention everything about the plot, down to the most minute details, since any one of them might be of interest to someone. The exact way in which Kira is killed has no relevance to the plot of the film as a whole, so there's no reason it should be mentioned. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree if it was a mention that she was wearing cotton instead of wool. But to argue that the means of death is irrelevant is beyond reasoning with. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Polisher on this one. How she dies really isn't critical to understanding the plot in this instance, in my mind. The high priest wasn't actively trying to help them so the fact that he stabs her in the back (aka a betrayal, if he had been helping or pretending to like the Chamberlain I would feel the opposite) doesn't really contain any relevance that would add meaning to the scene for readers. That said, I've occasionally seen a compromise in similar edit conflicts where the statement might be simplified to note that stabbing was the method used (where he stabbed her is truly irrelevant and makes the sentence in the diff read very awkwardly). Something along the lines of:


 * Jen is discovered and drops the shard, but Kira throws it back to him and is stabbed by the Skeksis' high priest, killing her.

Although for the record, the double "and" in the sentence already makes for some seriously awkward reading. With that thought in mind, I'd actually suggest:


 * Jen is discovered and drops the shard. Kira throws it back to him and is stabbed by the Skeksis' high priest, killing her.

Might be worth asking others at the film project what they think, though. Millahnna (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that I see Medeis's most recent edit ("stabbed to death"), that reads a little smoother than either of my suggestions. If consensus goes to keeping in the more specific notation of Kira's death, I'd say keep that phrasing. Millahnna (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Crystal-clear citation
(moved from my talk page) Barsoomian (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Concerning your recent edits to The Dark Crystal (29 October 2012 and 31 October 2012), I wanted to provide you with a more comprehensive, policy-based rationale for my decision to revert them (31 October 2012 1 and 2).

From the final paragraph of the lede to Wikipedia:Citing Sources:
 * "Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it."

I have devoted a great deal of time and energy (beginning with my edit of 17 August 2011) to the task of locating sources for use in the article and citing them in a correct and consistent format, adhering to Wikipedia standards. In fact, I was the one who added the inline citation – which you inexplicably dismissed as "redundant to the text" – and reference – which you wrongly asserted did not exist – for The Dark Crystal: Creation Myths in the first place. The changes you made did not conform to the citation method used in the article, which itself is the method generally prescribed by Wikipedia. Additionally, you have not achieved a consensus that would enable you to utilize an alternate method of citation – again, one that deviates from Wikipedia's standards – which I think is unlikely to happen.

From the first paragraph of the "Short citations" section of the aforementioned content guideline page:
 * "Some Wikipedia articles use short citations, giving summary information about the source together with a page number, as in . These are used together with general references, which give full details of the sources, but without page numbers, and are listed in a separate 'References' section."

As indicated by the above example (not to mention illustrated in the Dark Crystal article itself), a short citation, which is properly included in the "Notes" section of an article, will provide just enough information – at minimum, attribution of authorship, whether an author, otherwise an editor or publisher if an author is not specified – to help a reader locate the fully-cited source in the "References" section (for other examples of sources that do not specify an author, please refer to the "Henson Media Relations" and "ICv2" citations).

The short-form inline citation "Archaia Entertainment." corresponds with the long-form reference citation "'Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal'. Archaia Titles. Hollywood, CA: Archaia Entertainment.", listed as the fourth item under the "Internet" subheading of the article's "References" section. Even though the external link goes to a page about Jim Henson’s The Dark Crystal: Creation Myths and "jim-hensons-the-dark-crystal-creation-myths" is contained in the page's URL, the page itself is titled "Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal", and it is the actual page title that should appear in the long-form reference citation (please refer to Template:Cite web).

I sincerely appreciate your desire to improve the article, but in this particular case there really is nothing to be improved upon, at least with regards to the sort of improvements that you have sought to make. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I just edited the article to link all of the short-form inline citations in the "Notes" section to their corresponding long-form reference citations in the "References" section using the methods outlined in "Help:Shortened footnotes". If nothing else, you have been successful in motivating me to make this change, so I thank you. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The reference style you insist on is unfamiliar to most readers. I gave up on your article (since it clearly is "yours") since it had no source, just a footnote that uselessly only repeated the publisher's name that was already on the text. I found a useful source, and thought I would help anyone who came after by citing it in the article. You prefer to have your notes list look pretty than give information. Having references in a WP article is useless if they're not linked to the text that requires them, no one but you knows they're elsewhere in the article. Barsoomian (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not intending to get into an argument; however, I would like to address a couple of your points:
 * 1) The so-called "unfamiliar" reference style (notes–references) is one that Wikipedia endorses for use in articles. Rather than being designed to obfuscate the process of verifying information, as you seem to imply, it is actually quite straightforward, and, despite your professed lack of familiarity with it, appears in numerous articles, including, for example, two of the last four featured articles (31 October 2012 and 30 October 2012).
 * 2) Like many other contributors, I have put a lot of effort into working on the article, but I do not claim ownership on that or any other basis and emphatically reject your insinuations to the contrary.
 * 3) Though every change to an article is (ostensibly) made in good faith, not every change will be accepted by other editors. This is not inherently an act of bad faith – I am sure that you have rejected others' edits and have had others reject your edits – it is just something that happens as part of the collaborative process. It certainly does not warrant poor sportsmanship from the one whose edit was rejected. That is entirely on you.
 * 4) The "useful source" you found was already cited – usefully, I should say – both in the "Notes" (short-form) and "References" (long-form) sections since 17 August 2011. You actually did not add anything that was not already provided in the article long before you made your initial edit on 29 October 2012.
 * 5) Form and function are not mutually exclusive – I have absolute confidence that all citations in the article satisfy applicable Wikipedia guidelines for both criteria.
 * 6) As I said earlier, you prompted me to link the inline citations to their corresponding reference citations so that readers can more readily access them within the article (which is definitely not to say that they were previously inaccessible). I believe this qualifies as a constructive change with a positive outcome. Though perhaps not the best way to frame the situation, you can look at it like "losing a battle", only to "win a war", in a manner of speaking.
 * Thanks for taking a moment to read this. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you had not reverted my first edit without discussion you would be on better ground to deny "ownership". If I hadn't persisted you would never have changed anything. While at least now you can get to references from the text, I fail to see any advantage in having to jump twice.
 * Regarding your "4)": The link I added (Archaia Entertainment "Jim Henson’s The Dark Crystal: Creation Myths")was certainly not in the "notes", or even the References, which you keep separate for some reason that makes sense to you, but not me.
 * Looking at the page then, I found a link named "Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal", no mention of "Creation Myths" which was the important part of the actual title, so reading or doing text search for that on the page would not find it, especially as it is stashed away under "Internet" rather than under the name of the actual book in the previous section. So the link was there, but effectively hidden under the wrong name in the wrong section. You could only find it if you were the one who put it there. There was nothing in the "note" then except the name of the publisher, no link, no other information at all. A dead end. At which point I gave up and Googled. You're using "references" in a way I have seen in no other Wikipedia article. It should be called a bibliography. "References" are for citations. Segregating "Internet" references is absurd. You might as well delete all those links if they are just dumped there in a jumble instead of being directly cited. Barsoomian (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we agree that this issue is settled? — Apo-kalypso (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue of the link I added, yes. The issue of the strange segregation of references and disconnected citations that caused the problem, no. It's slightly improved over before, but still is user-hostile. But clearly you are deeply committed to this and I don't have the energy or or time to campaign to rationalise it. Barsoomian (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, I am writing here in response to a request at WP:3O. I have read through the discussion above, and I agree that "short form" citations is a reasonable approach. I have never noticed an article that breaks the full references down by publication type though, and that seems awkward to me. I think it would be more readable to organize them by author last name, which is certainly more standard. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking the time to review this discussion and offer your opinion, VQuakr. I claim full responsibility for the unconventional arrangement of items in the "References" section. When I first happened across the article more than a year ago and observed it in an underdeveloped state, I took it upon myself to search for and identify sources that could be used to enhance and expand its content. I made the determination that the list I compiled would be far too unwieldy if presented in standard format, so I decided to group the sources by type of media. I did this with the sole intent of making it easier for readers (and prospective editors) to navigate the "References" section. If the current configuration truly is counterintuitive and unhelpful (though I am, for a number of reasons, reluctant to base an assessment of these qualities on Barsoomian's perspective alone), then I will change it. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Barsoomian, In regards to the edit I just reverted, please refer to my first posting in this discussion, specifically, "Even though the external link goes to a page about Jim Henson’s The Dark Crystal: Creation Myths and 'jim-hensons-the-dark-crystal-creation-myths' is contained in the page's URL, the page itself is titled 'Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal', and it is the actual page title that should appear in the long-form reference citation." I honestly do not want to escalate the situation, but if you attempt to change this again, I will have no choice but to treat you as a disruptive editor and pursue remedies accordingly. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC) [This was initially posted at User talk:Barsoomian, and has been reproduced here with minor changes.]


 * I'm so sorry for intruding on your website. How disruptive of me to even think that your article could be improved. Clearly it's perfect in every way already. Barsoomian (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Growth potential
This article – specifically, sections dealing with the film's production, release, and reception (please refer to WP:MOSFILM for details) – is underdeveloped. While a number of works that are already cited in the article can be more extensively mined for information on these topics, I have compiled a list of additional sources to help enhance and expand the article's content (some of which may be employed as general references). When citing any source, please make certain that the format is consistent with the style currently in use throughout the article (you can copy and paste the markup text of items appearing below directly into the article's "References" section) and observe all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Books


 * Comics


 * Film


 * Periodicals

Remington Max 'Maxwell' Willis (born August 23, 2005) is well for his roles of Don Muehl in the classic show Max & Friends. He has been the host of Family Feud to 1969 to 2013. Max joined Family Feud in 1983 before Richard Dawson. He left Family Feud in 1976, Richard Dawson's pilot.

In season 30 (2010)until his start in season 1 (1969-1970), He started his first show in season 25 (2005).

In season 31 (2011), He began Family Feud with Lego blocks and his role of John Willis in the Nick show, Max Bob Sponge Pants. He started his own 12-minute video, How Family Feud Got Started, a long video of how the Feud started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.254.133 (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)