Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show/Archive 2

Songs
Isn't the correct name for "Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a Touch Me" "Creature of the Night"? Paulytlws 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Barno 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not correct. On nearly every cast album, as well as the movie soundtrack it is called "Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch Me" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.61.125 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast List "Clean up"
According to style guidlines, cast list are not within Wikipedia policy. It is in the info box. There seems no reason to double it. The former consensus was to remove them. Wiki asks us to incorporate them into the plot section. Since this was done as well, I edited out the cast "laundry List".--Amadscientist 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Really they are not even needed in the info box at all if we have incorporated them into the plot section. Any thoughts on that?--Amadscientist 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an infobox is to provide a standardized "at-a-glance" place to get the summary information. I wouldn't worry about duplication. Nearly every article with an infobox duplicates some or all of the infobox in the article text. Kww 00:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At first I thought perhaps the info box looked to long....then I saw info boxes for other films. This is nothing compared to some...like Star Wars. And they don't even list a cast. Is it July 1st already? But the Laundry List of the Cast should stay out, right, as per Wikiguidlines? We don't need a seperate list section, do we?--Amadscientist 01:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, a list of cast members isn't appropriate for an article. That's why we have good external links, like to IMDb. --Gimme danger 02:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually both Amadscientist and Gimme danger are wrong. Cast lists are completely standard, almost universally so. The infobox should only have the lead cast, while more minor characters go in a main cast list. If you will look at some featured articles about films, such as Star Wars, V for Vendetta, Lord of the Rings, Halloween, and Casablanca, all of them have cast lists. I'm sure that you'll diligently find Jaws and point out that it lacks a cast list. That is true, but it is an exception and I am sure that no one would remove a cast list if I added it. You'll also notice that even its infobox cast list is like the others and not like the one currently on RHPS, having only the actors names. I'll change this back. Atropos 18:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, done that, though I would definitely agree with any of you who think that the casting section I made most definitely needs to be improved. Atropos 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, goes against current consensus and documented Wikipolicy. The consensus on those pages does not effect the one on this page. Besides you are incorrect, Halloween does not have a cast list. Just because there are other articles that have done something is just a lousy excuse and may well be someone making trouble for the fun of it. See Atropos edit summery.--Amadscientist 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean the consensus that says that it should be included and makes no mention of putting it in the infobox? Those few other articles that are the vast majority of articles and almost every featured article about a film? I don't know where you "policy" from because I've never heard of it and its literally not followed anywhere. Halloween does have a section for cast, called Casting.


 * As I said, the cast section I made is far from optimal, but its better than making the infobox ugly and long, and says more than the infobox did. I'm sure you can expand and improve the cast section.


 * Please do not attack me. I came here to try to be civil to you; I would appreciate if you tried to be civil to me. Atropos 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was civil. Stop trying so hard to put words in my mouth. No one attacked you. Simply stating such does not make it true. Your last attempt to do the very same thing was not successful and will not be so now. You are being uncivil by returning to this page with the purpose of creating problems and stirring up a new mess. Your edit was not accepted and was returned. Wiki states that you work with the editors "Most interested" in the article. I have no reason to believe that you will from your past behavior on this page but will remind you that past consensus on this page has determined that a cast list is not necessary and that the infobox is fine for this page.--Amadscientist 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change


 * We should be working on the "Find a reasonable compromise" step. Reverting my edits and refering to previous consensus is completely wrong, because consensus can change. I made a valid edit which I have supported the change with previous policy. You told me that you already have consensus because gimme danger agreed with you (even though before you incorrectly stated that "To reach a consensus you need more time and many more people," [ link ] when three people agreed). Why do you disagree with my edit? Are you sure it isn't because of our history?


 * You were not civil. You accused me of "causing trouble for fun." So it's clear, I said that this will be fun because I had a feeling you would revert my edit and then refuse to discuss it. As to you never having attacked me before, do I have to go back and quote you? Atropos 01:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier comment, I generally dislike lists in articles, since they tend to be uncited and to clutter the article. However, in the case of films, following the guidelines posted below, I think a cast list is appropriate. --Gimme danger 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Amadscientist, the cast list obviously does not belong in plot summary, as it is not a summary of the plot. The guidelines clearly suggest including it under production or in its own section. Also, please use bolding and italics with hesitation. Atropos 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That is fine, however do not stick it in the middle of the design section cuting off related sections.--Amadscientist 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal from Project Musical theatre
I have removed myself from the Wikiproject Musical Theatre and removed the article from that projects scope. Their style guidelines conflict greatly with Wikipedia policy on lists and with Project Films style guide lines as well. I didn't want to see members of the two projects at odds with each other and confusing meaning and intent. Films are rarely listed under that project. It is not completely incorrect but could be causing some confusion. Should someone feel strongly about this article being apart of that project I will not object if it is re-added. I mean no disrepect to that project, but I do feel that their guidlines could be used on this article and watching a cast list get re-added against the consensus here could be bad.--Amadscientist 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that this article, though technically about a film, belongs under that wikiproject, as well as the film one. Not just because the movie sprang from the stageshow, but because the film's midnight showings with fans performing are a noteworthy development in the history of musical theatre.  The whole Category:Rocky Horror is of interest to both projects.  People from both groups need to cooperate, but should remember that core policies like verifiability trump any small group's self-consensus about style. Where the cast list is notable through third-party reliable sources, and significant to describing the film's significance and impact, it belongs in the text with context.  Listing actors and roles just for fansite competeness does not belong in an infobox nor in text.  In this case, I think there are enough independent sources to make the cast list worth including in both the stage-show and movie articles, despite the large overlap.  Barno 02:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Extra Song on 25th Anniversary Soundtrack Album
HI, On the 25th Anniversery Album an extra s0ong is included - "Once in a while" Track 10. This is performed by the Rocky Horror Picture Show Cast. Just wondering if this should be included as it's on the soundtrack, but not in the film 84.67.18.50 08:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the article refers only to relevant material to released versions of the UK and US film versions.
 * After thinking about this, I wonder if perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned as a well written prose beneath the track section.--Amadscientist 04:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the other song besides "Superheroes" that was cut from the film, then it should be mentioned in text, as I'm sure it's noted in a couple of sources. I assume there are magazine mentions of the anniversary album? Barno 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Project style guidlines
The article was recently re-added to Project Musical Theatre. The Style Guidlines conflict greatly to the style guidelines of Project Film. Which project takes precidence here, the Film or the Theatre project?

Are we willing to see lists re-added? Cast lists re-added and the template changed? Or is it the consensus of the editors here to stay with the Project film style and template.--Amadscientist 10:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, i never realised there was so much history to this article! I have just joined the music theatre project and didn't know of all the disagreements, although i still dont fully understand what the disagreement was about.


 * I see it as this, the article should remain part of both projects, but fit with the Project Film guidelines. The reason I feel it is important the article is included in the Musical Theatre project is that the film is based on the stage show, and it also falls into our scope of topics as it is a musical film.Mark E 10:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some really great dedicated editors here! They just want whats best for the article.--Amadscientist 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Film project guidelines should govern musical film articles. The Musicals project tag is just to help us get a count of articles that concern musicals and to assist people who are interested in musical films to find articles that they might wish to work on.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then unless there are other objections, I have no problem at this time. It should stay apart of the project.--Amadscientist 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fans with more passion than facts
People are changing referenced material with no new references to back up there information. It looks like fans with passion but little facts are getting back to work on this article.--69.62.180.166 07:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to revert uncited changes when they appear. I'll look through the recent changes and see if anything's particularly suspect. --Gimme danger 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, but....darn it I think I may have reverted other things since the change of the referenced material. I looked but I think it was nothing of great importance...I believe.

Looks like were back to adding the cast list again. I have removed it...again. Are we ready to change consensus or do we just have one stubburn "Fan".--Amadscientist 04:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever archived this page
I couldn't figure out how to do it.--Amadscientist 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Gimme danger 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Form new consensus for including cast list and limiting information in Info box
An editor has attempted to re-add the cast list, and edit down the info box. I have only one objection to this.....it was previously agreed not to add lists of any kind to the article and that a cast list goes against wikipolicy. There was consensus. However for the benefit of this editor and any other editor who may wish the change let us resume the conversation here and see.

Let us take a poll. Who believes that the cast list should be returned and the info box edited down as shown here [] or as it was here []? While this may not form a consensus. It is suggested in Wikipedia guidelines as part of the discussion to do so. --Amadscientist 02:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as is. = I believe there is no reason to change now, but if the consensus changes in a real way I can accept it.--Amadscientist 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Move this discussion back to the old section. Your practice of disjointing discussion into multiple sections does nothing but confuse me. Also, Consensus is not a supermajority or a vote. For the convenience of our discussion, I've notified Gimme danger and Kww of its taking place. Atropos 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We are moving forward with this in this section to keep the discussion linear. I welcome all to change or keep consensus.--Amadscientist 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the tagline discussion, there were 21 sections, 15 of them after I asked that we keep it in one section, and 14 of them started by you. You did not need to make a new section, all it does is move the attention away from all the discussion that has previously occurred. If someone were to jump in now, it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to miss the discussion in the original section, and all the arguments made therein. Please return there now. Atropos 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of you know that you are at (or over) 3RR on the article on this issue. Having seen the two versions, this is clearly one of the silliest edit-wars ever, and certainly not one to risk getting blocked over, so I urge you both to desist. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is my best effort to end this new situation. If an editor makes a change and it is not agreed upon then a discussion should begin. I am working with the editor in good faith to attempt to establish what the consensus is. Should you not wish to participate in the discussion, I certainly understand.--Amadscientist 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First, you should know that I have reported you at the 3RR noticeboard.


 * We do not take a poll before we make an edit. I have provided the flow chart further up this page, my edit was completely within process; it was, in fact, specified on that chart as the way to change consensus. Your only objection seems to be that you previously had consensus (though two weeks before you were telling us that three people weren't enough to make a consensus). This is not a valid objection.


 * But I've already made these arguments which you conveniently ignored by starting a new section. Newyorkbrad is right. This is beyond silly. Atropos 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia suggestions for dispute resolution is not what I believe Newyorkbrad was talking about. The poll is an effort to gauge other editors opinion as part of the discussion. There are other editors to consider.--Amadscientist 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this comment. I reported you because you broke the rule. Checking your contributions, this isn't the first time you've done so. Please provide an actual reason a cast section shouldn't be included. Atropos 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the first time I've had this happen ... all my comments are gone, and not even a trace in the history. Anyway, I'm in favor of having the cast list repeated ... names only in the infobox, names with role descriptions in the text. And yes, I agree ... we are all doomed to hit WP:LAME one of these days. Additionally, amadscientist, you have gone over 3RR again. Hopefully, you won't get rewarded by having the article protected while you throw a hissy fit this time, and you will get the several day block that you deserve. Kww 03:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Responce to comment = Thank you for your....opinion. At least you are weighing in on the consensus even if in the most uncivil manner. I was not rewarded with the protection. I requested it and it was granted. I have not requested it this time as I see no reason to do so but you are welcome to. If you read 3RR, admin can block someone even if they did not violate the 3RR rule if they feel the editing is disruptive. You may feel one way but I feel differently. As for the cast list, if it is the consensus to re-add them (where in the previous discussion Atropos stated that the Article was too "Listy"...I do wish he'd make up his mind} then I could care less. I am only looking out for other interested parties, you being one of them, regardless of your personal opinion of me.--Amadscientist 03:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you go look at the history for June 13 and count your reverts before you claim that you didn't violate the 3RR rule at that time. Kww 04:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need to. I can ony repeat what the 3RR page says, and that is this...;


 * (E)ditors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.


 * No action was taken on that report.--Amadscientist 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I also hear that you violated 3RR at straight pride. You have a consistent history of violating WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. Though you seem to be a positive force in the article space, you make dispute resolution impossible and dispute everything. Please reconsider your behavior. Atropos 04:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you meant you read the history of that article and the discussion as you took time to add to the vote to delete the article. Which I nominated after all attempts at following wikipolicy there failed very much like what is happening here. But I do appreciate your vote there.--Amadscientist 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you just voted, Krimpet nominated it. You also voted for a completely different (and also completely non-credible) reason than most delete votes. Atropos 05:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhm......no. I added the speedy deletion tag. Krimpet then deleted it, but returned it for a vote. I did add my reason for putting up the tag as being due to Ad spam which was the reason it was initially deleted, and the same reason that many believe it should go. They feel (as I did) that it was improperly sourced at the time. An editor has since made many changes to the article and added a great deal of references without having to use the same Ad link over and over but it may still be deleted. But that is neither here nor there. I still appreciate the time you took to add your vote there.--Amadscientist 05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm basing what I said on what I was told by another involved party who's hopefully less biased than you. Let's get back on topic. Can you think of an actually good reason not to have a cast section? So its clear, I would prefer a better cast section than the one I added. This isn't, the cast section provided or no cast section; its any cast section or no cast section. Atropos 05:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure I would agree with your definition of biased....but, as for the cast section I have already said (although there is so much now in the talk section it could easily been overlooked) that I don't really care if there is a Cast section as long as it is the consensus of editors. Now I know you want it, Kww wants it, also Ashford wants it (he was attempting to put it back a while ago). When I talk of consensus I speak of the consensus as was reached at the end of the last dispute where we all had agreed that lists made the article look un-encyclopedic. You have now changed your position on that for this section. There is simply no reason you cannot. I am just not sure if there is a consensus to keep the list with other editors which only means that it may well disappear again, if we are all of different opinions. The casting section as seen in the Star Wars article is actually not bad. It gives an opportunity to speak directly about each actor and each character. That can also be a bad thing however, as I am sure there will be differing opinion about each. So for the record I am not opposed to it, if it is what the consensus determines. Kww has placed the list back and has left the information in the info box. Would that satisfy you? If so we can simply begin building on this until such time that there is an objection. I don't know if we can call this consensus, but compromise is always the best way to move forward and avoid what happened last time.--Amadscientist 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to take a closer look at that flowchart I posted above that clearly explains how consensus is determined. You disrupted this article for no reason. Atropos 07:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Man you just don't get it. Perhaps you should look closer at that chart yourself. There is no reason to remove information from the info box. Information needed for at a glance info. I object to adding a list, but if it is the consensus, fine. I am willing to compromise right now to avoid furthering a situation. Now you say I disrupted this article. WHAT EVER!.--Amadscientist 07:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Project Film Style Guidlines for "Cast Lists"
''(A) cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles. It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits. Credits should be written in the "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format, but for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary, e.g, an example from Witchfinder General (film):''

Robert Russell as John Stearne. Playing Hopkins’s thuggish assistant, Russell certainly looked the part. However, as filming progressed, Reeves found the actor’s high pitched voice unsuitable for such a rough character, and after production was completed he had all of his dialogue dubbed by another actor, Jack Lynn (who also appeared in a small role as an innkeeper). ''Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information. Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" that really belongs in the plot summary.''--Amadscientist 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Man, this talk page has just gotten sillier and sillier since I left. It's an archivists nightmare. --Gimme danger 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's everbody's nightmare.--Amadscientist 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

But I suppose this is what a talk page is for. Getting everyone to decide what is wanted for the article. Discussion may get heated, but as long as it does not get carried away and something productive comes out of it then it is working the way it should. I wouldn't worry about being added to WP:LAME, none of this comes close to what I found there when I looked last night. Wow! People really can go bonkers over this stuff!--Amadscientist 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Article protected
I've protected the article for 48 hours after being made aware of one of the silliest edit wars I've seen in a while. Some folks here have taken something fun and turned it into a war zone. The history shows immature behavior across the range, with people gloating over provoking others into using up all their reverts. Sort it out on the talk page, please. If this continues after protection expires there will be blocks given out all round. Remember, 3RR is a hard limit, not a right. Raymond Arritt 01:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have begun editing the "List" as closely to Atropos' suggestion as possible, while sticking to the film credits and factual information. I extend an apology to all for whatever has been taken as my part in this situation. I wish to move forward and work together with editors as I always have attempted (though obviously not in the opinion of some). There has been some great misunderstandings here and I believe it is time to drop the anger and move forward.--Amadscientist 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the constructive response. If you guys get it sorted out you can ask to unprotect the page early (WP:RFPP works in both directions). Raymond Arritt 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh please. Amadscientist made a mountain out of a molehill, that's all. Atropos 03:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think that joke I made in the edit comments was taken a bit too seriously by some. I don't really know any way that I could provoke the two of you into getting to the 3RR limit. Kww 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Atropos 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? There is no reason, regardless of how we may feel personally about each other and our individual contributions or lack there of, that we can't just cool down and edit the article. Should we perhaps agree on a way to object to work that is posted with out reverts or edits. We could just post an "Objection" section per subject on the talk page. Explain in detail what is the argument for or against an addition or deletion and then seek an adopted admin or even random admin as third party to look at each "objection" and help to build to consensus.--Amadscientist 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Except no one makes half a big a deal about other peoples' edits as you. You're the one who starts conflicts. Your the one who owns the article and breaks the three revert rule. You've contributed to the article, but your ability to work with other contributors needs a lot of work. We don't need a big discussion, consensus finding, permanent protection deal. We need you to act better. Atropos 04:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would beg to differ as your constant warring and even reversal of opinion contribute in a purposeful manner to this situation. If you are simply digging in your heels hoping that I get blocked even if it means you get blocked as well, so be it. I can wait for protection and any block to end to start editing again. We see things so differently and I had hoped that the things we share in common, including our mutual interest in this film could get us past this situation. If you are willing, I am willing to to work in good faith. I can't change your attitude nor would I try but this really has to stop.--Amadscientist 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The question, amadscientist, is are you willing to work smoothly with other people? Right now, if someone makes a change you disagree with, it gets reverted, and you take an opinion poll while you beat us over the head with style manuals. More normally, if someone makes a change you disagree with, you should leave it in unless it is factually wrong, misspelled, or the like. Then you go to the talk page and voice an objection. If other people chime in, it goes. If no one chimes in, you let it slide. Kww 12:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem quite prejudice against me right now and have broadened this single situation into supposed action I take every single time. It is nonsense and the history of the article bares that out. You have made edits I have not changed as well as many editors. The edit war of June was Atropos doing what you just stated with your support then as well. Get over it and stop harping please, because right now in this situation I certainly could say you were beating me over the head with with incorrect citing of policy. As for edits not being reverted...that simply is wrong. If an edit is made and it is reverted you are supposed to leave it unless it is the consensus. Consensus has been the problem all along. First both you and Atropos' definition and now misinterpretation of a flow chart. Edits do get changed. It is up to the consensus as to whether it stays and even another Editor has said as much to you in this dispute, and he was for the list. Atropos picked a fight he knew would draw me out then contacted all the parties involved in the last edit war even after he had stated he was taking this article off his watch list. Not everyone returned however to pick up this fight. Just you. Anger, resentment and a vendetta is all I see from the two of you, I certainly have changed past edits, like when someone changed information about props being based on a British Frankenstein movie when the reference I added clearly stated they were re-used. The change was made with no new reference so I reverted it. At the end of the last dispute the one clear thing was that lists were not encyclopedic now it is different and nearly all interested parties have weighed in on the subject (not the fight). That is all we needed and all Atropos had to wait for, but instead stood up on a soapbox and screamed "I'm being reverted! Look he has a history of it! He did it on the Straight Pride article", without even knowing the facts about it. He was just listening to gossip. For the record I was reverted on that article about 5 or 6 times and my reverts started when the same editor kept removing tags I added, one of which was a speedy deletion tag that did get the article deleted until admin put it up for a vote on AfD (which still ended with it's deletion). When this was thrown in my face and I mentioned that I was the one that got it nominated for deletion Atropos accused me of lying! Good grief! Will you two give it a rest PLEASE! And for the record, working smoothly is not a wiki policy, but working in good faith with civility is and neither of you have been doing so. You are right about one thing, this is destined to WP:LAME. I wonder why?

One last thing. What was supposed to be a compromise of allowing the list yet leaving the information in place in the info box, that even Kww agreed with....Atropos reverted anyway. So much for compromise. He just wanted his way, with no attempt to adhere to consensus..--Amadscientist 13:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Get off your soapbox. I have bent over backwards to be civil towards you; if I don't seem so civil now it might be because my patience is waning. Atropos 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along??? Nathansummers 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page discussion, building a consensus and Wikipedia sources
A major part of Wikipedia is discussion and debate. The "Talk" page was added so that editors could get together and debate the subject of the article. While sometimes these debates do get out of hand, it is necessary to have an open exchange of ideas. There are many different ideas as to what should be included and what direction an article should take. What references to use and what external links to add. There are many pages of Wikipedia policy to guide us as editors but that does not mean that they are completely understood. Let us all take time to read Wikiguidlines and policy for a better article and for an easier time discussing it. This is not to suggest that any editors are wrong in any way but that future editors or even past editors may wish to learn more about proper wikipedia procedure to avoid deletions and reverts as well as including factual information and how to properly source such.

Suggested wiki reading;

Talk page

Talk page guidelines

Citing sources

Verifiability

No original research

Neutral point of view

What Wikipedia is not

Wiki is not paper

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day

External links

Three-revert rule

WikiProject Films

WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

There are a great number of other articles, policies and procedures that you will see as you read each page, as they link to even further reading.--Amadscientist 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really at a loss for words here. Atropos 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * May I suggest an lol? DuckieRotten 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Me, too. Didn't I get chastised a few days ago for saying that someone beats us over the head with policies? Kww 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh its not for us, its just a complete assumption of bad faith for any future editor who comes to this page. The ironic part is that I remember he called me a policy Nazi. Atropos 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I never called you a policy Nazi. You just can't stop exaggerating. You have a real problem sir. Too bad you haven't contributed to the article even a quarter of what you have to the talk page. Of course your contributions are argument and insult here, Flip flop and harassment. Your article contributions all need others to clean them up...drastically!--Amadscientist 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. I totally don't see you calling me a policy Nazi here. Atropos 22:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"You are being a nazi about it." Is what I said. That is a comparison. It is not a quote calling you a "Policy Nazi". I also apologised for it. That, I guess meant nothing to you. At the very least attempt accuracy. You exaggerate everything. Your interpretation of policy was questionable then as it is now.--Amadscientist 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, at this point, none of this is contributing to the article whatsoever. Can one of you please just be the bigger person and stop responding? DuckieRotten 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, we stopped two days ago. Atropos 04:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review
In case no one saw this, the article was peer reviewed. Here is the result, should anyone wishes to make these changes suggested here.--Amadscientist 23:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Credits
Should all the Transylvanians be listed in the "Casting" section. If not, who do we include and who do we exclude. Should they be listed at all? Is the "Casting" section OK they way it is, or should we write it as prose?--Amadscientist 01:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Update
Using the article on Wikipedia for "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", I have updated the page and added images. Both films are from the 1970s and produced by Twentieth Century Fox and both very high grossing films. I did not copy the articles format exactly but did base the number of Fair Use rational images from that page as well as section titles along with using the Project Film Style Guide Lines. I also used nearly all suggestions from the recent peer review. I deleted a good deal of inaccurate information while doing so in another general clean up of the article.--Amadscientist 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of August 20, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] The article mostly follows the manual of style, but the transylvanians section of the cast list is too large. These being tertiary cast members, only the ones notable for the film, or who had obviously notable outside achievements (a good test is that their listed appearances not be red links) should stay.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: [[Image: Symbol wait.svg|15px]] A few aspects need fixing here.


 * While I pretty much agree with the statement, the Time Warp is "the film's signature song" according to what source? That's a potentially controversial statement, and thus needs to be directly sourced.
 * The first sentence of "Locations, sets..." reads like OR to me, and needs sourcing. Any interpretation or other meta-style discussion of the film that is based on subjective assessment needs sourcing.
 * The first sentence of Costumes, which is an extremely broad statement, needs desperate sourcing. Qualifying it by saying, "for its time" or something might be in order, as today the costumes don't seem particularly ingenious or racy.
 * The opinions of Sue Blane in the costumes section need attribution to a reliable source. Any time you make assertions about the perspective of an individual it is potentially controversial.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] Covers all points, but the reaction section needs to have a sub-section or at least a paragraph solely on the published critical reaction. The criticisms from the intro need to be included there.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] For a film that has so many die-hard fans and few vocal detractors, the article does a good job of staying neutral. But the statements of published criticism need to be in the Reaction section.
 * 5. Article stability? [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Seems to be adequately stable.
 * 6. Images?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Good use and properly attributed.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky  (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all that contributed
Well it looks like a number of people stepped up to the plate to help make the needed changes for the article to pass to GA rating. Congratulations to all and a big thank you as well!--Amadscientist 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Rocky Horror Category
I wanted to wait untill the article had a GA rating to ask about a "Rocky Horror" Category. This would include this article the article on the stage show and Shock Treatment as well as the any article related, such as the articles about the cult following, the sequels and other media and the actor and crew and character articles. What do you guys think?--Amadscientist 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As of just before Halloween, this cat has been created and some of the category/subcategory organizing has been done. I did a bit more: I made "Songs from films" a parent category for "Songs from Rocky Horror", and proposed the rename of the songs category to "Rocky Horror songs", like most other subcats in "Songs from films". Barno 02:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the opening paragraph- along with mentioning a parody of horror and sci fi films- could also mention how it's a comical response to the sexual liberation movement. It's just that is such a prominent theme. Yankhill (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Improved plot summary
I was pleased to see people contribute to the plot summary, and liked the result. Of course, it only took a couple of days for all of that work to be erased. I'd like to see a few comments on the two different versions of the summary.Kww 12:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How to spell the planet Transexual?
Does anyone have an authoritative source for the spelling of the name of the planet Transexual or Transsexual? This article seems to use Transsexual. I don't think that's correct. That is the correct spelling for the word, but this is a proper name of a fictional planet, not the word for a person who changes sex. (BTW it is spelled transexual in the description of Frank-N-Furter under Casting where it probably should be transsexual, unless he is being called that because he's from that planet)

The back of my video box spells it with one s. Most scripts I've found on-line also spell with one s, but some do use two.

All these scripts I found online have one s:

http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/rhps.shtml

http://www.cosmosfactory.org/script_rhs.shtml

http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~doke/rocky/

http://alwaysontherun.net/rocky.htm#12

These have two:

http://www.cosmosfactory.org/script_rhps.shtml

http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~doke/rocky/

I suggest it should be changed to Transexual, unless someone has a more authoritative source that says otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lchittenden (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I also found the lyrics to the song "Sweet Transvestite" on many pages and they also use one s. I'm sure it must be one s, because I don't think the majority of sources would have the wrong spelling. I'm changing it on the page. Lchittenden (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You certainly can and should make these changes.....they probably wont stick. People will change to the webster dictionary or a Spelling bot will change them. I suggest making sure that it matches the original script and then making it linkable to avoid the spelling bots. --Amadscientist (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The spelling should be Transsexual regardless of proper grammar, because of the way it is pronounced in the movie, emphasizing and stretching out the letter s - "Transsssexual Transylvania" and because as pointed out, it refers to a place name, not the dictionary definition - DesertRat16

Ballroom Blitz
I have seen that many sites say that "Ballroom Blitz" was in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Infact I even have a "Ballroom Blitz" MP3 that claims that it came from the movie. I dont recall this song in the moive, then again its been a while since I seen it. Lord Vipes (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ballroom Blitz is definitely not in this movie. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too have seen Ballroom Blitz appear under searches for "Rocky Horror" and its variations on limewire and other music lists. It definately isnt in the film or any incarnates of Rocky Horror. The one reason I can think that someone would assume it is in the show is because Ballroom Blitz sounds very Time Warp-esque —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoranton (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving the remake section to a separate page
Somehow I think someone should move all the remake information into it's own page titled Rocky Horror. As the information will grow in the coming months it makes sense to do a separate page. Someone could write a brief summary for this page. Dirtyharry1994 (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After it grows large enough. Hopefully, the whole section will reduce to a story of how MTV changed its mind after public outcry, and it won't grow at all. No way to tell at this time. Kww (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Copywrite
I'm not sure if this is the place to ask, but who holds the copywrite on the Rocky Horror Picture show posters pictured within the article? I notice that no copywrite has been cited, should it be?--90.193.106.98 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can ask here. I added the screen captures using fair use rational. I also added another image under the same rational but it was deemed unneccesary for the article and was deleted. Under "fair use" it is deemed that no free image exists for this subject and the use of a few small low resolutuion screen caps for encylopedic use to illustrate the subject does not infringe on the copyright owners right to promote their works. They can however disagree or object and Wikipedia removes them.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Copy right is not the issue.....but Wikiguidlines have changed and Fair use images are now only allowed in the namespace. I have removed all but one image to adhere to wikiguidlines and as the original author of the images have requested speedy deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes for Feature Article submission
A few changes are needed before the article can be considered for feature Article status. I am making these changes now. Over all it may look like drastic changes are being made. Only Images are being deleted not information unless no reference can be found to anything that may be disputed or questioned. The changes are needed and will not chnage the overall feel of the article. No disputed information will be added. And references will be placed by the middle of the week.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that we've had our differences in the past, but please, if you are serious about FAC, let me take a pass at the wording in this article without winding up in edit wars. Your intentions are good, but an FA requires a different writing style. I helped take Natalee Holloway to FA, and can help get this one there too.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I would have asked you....but wasn't sure how you would react. I have already made a number of changes, including my own previous wording as well as some stuff that got pretty heavily edited by so many people the line began to loose it's original meaning.


 * While you hit the prose to bring it up to FA quality I will work on the references replacing unacceptable sites and wiki formating.


 * Question Kww....what is the Namespace. Fair use images can only be used in the "article namespace". That's not the "Info Box" is it?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Article namespace" just means regular articles, as opposed to "Talk:", "Image:", "User:", "User talk:", etc. With proper rationales, you can (and should, if you want to go for FA status) incorporate fair use images. I'll get to work on the text. It may take a week. I'll do it section by section.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah...got it.
 * I am going to go ahead and withdraw the candidacy. It can go through another peer review and then be resubmitted.--207.69.139.146 (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Petition Against Remake
Would it be at all prudent to put that there is a petition signed by 18,630 people (at the time that I am mentioning this, at least) against the MTV remake of RHPS? I won't put the site here, even, so that no one thinks this is just a blatent plug of the site. But I do feel that the large number of signatures coupled with the anger of many fans of the original RHPS may make it relevent for at least a mention. If not, that's fine, I just want to see if anyone else thinks it might be a good thing to add in.Voltair3 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources commenting on the petition (not blogs or fan sites, but real news media), then go ahead and add it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fritz, not Igor
This has turned into a contentious issue, but one must note that Ygor never tortured the Frankenstein's Monster in either Son of Frankenstein or Ghost of Frankenstein. Fritz tortured the monster in the first Karloff film.

Rocky, cowering in his birth tank, hiding from Riff Raff who has been tormenting him, much as Igor tormented Frankenstein's monster.

21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Enda80 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enda80 (talk • contribs)


 * You do realise that Rocky Horror is based on "Hammer" British horror films. If we want a full research of the genre let's at least look at what is be lampooned and spoofed by the film makers and British and Australian artistic team.
 * There was a Fritz in one of the 7 Frankenstein movies but I'd have to rewatch to remember most of them.


 * You want Fritz. Go for it. I'm gonna leave it out for now.

--Amadscientist (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vocal ranges
If references can be found that specificaly state the vocal range of each performer this information can be added to the approppriate section, the musical numbers. However no references have been used and are in the wrong section. Plus....there is no vocal range for Peter Hinwood. He didn't sing his part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the vocale range from the play as a start;
 * Brad Majors (Rock Tenor, 20s)


 * Janet Weiss (Mezzo with belt, 20s)


 * Dr. Frank N Furter (Baritone 20's-50)


 * Riff Raff (Tenor with Falestto, 25-45)


 * "Columbia (Mezzo, tap dance, 20s)


 * Rocky Horror (Rock Baritone/Tenor, Early 20s)


 * Eddie / Dr. Scott (Very flexible Baritone, 30-45)
 * Magenta (Husky Rock Mezzo/Alto, 30+) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for all of this? Tribal44 (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Tribal44
 * http://www.musicaltheatreaudition.com/shows/rockyhorror.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not just being rude here. There has been a lot of changes and disputes over these vocal ranges because there is no known reference. Also placing the vocal range in the cast list is innappropriate when there is a section for the musical numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a source for the film vocal ranges....but I am unsure if it can be used as a reference. The Rocky Horror Picture Show Karaoke CDG reproduces the music nearly exactly and gives the vocal range of each character. I will get this information and post it. It is as close as we are going to get to the actual information. The vocals from the play were changed to match the new performers and the new arrangements made by Musical Director Richard Hartley.


 * I don't think that would be a reliable source. Check with the admin or something. Tribal44 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

It doesn't matter anyway...it wasn't the full vocal range just the key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is one last place where this information may be found. RockyMusic.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just curious Tribal....where are you getting your information from?


 * I am asking this because if you have a source....just use it. Even if you think it may not be appropriate....however, if you are placing the vocal range of these parts as you "Believe" them to be...that is original research and is not acceptable. That is why any information without a reference can and usually is deleted. I want to avoid an editing war....but I also want to protect this article from random unreferenced material which causes the article to be unstable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked the other website, and there's no source. To tell you the truth....I'm part of a "Rocky cast", and I play "Magenta", lol. I knew the vocal ranges for a long time. Its not a good enough "source", but thats where I get my "info" from, lol. I know you are trying to help with this article, and not being rude. No hard feelings :} Tribal44 (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

Time Out for a Call-Out
'''DRILL ME, FILL ME, THEN BILL ME... DENTIST OF THE NIGHT'''

We should all agree to tone this down, let Tribal get the appropriate ducks in order in the sandbox, and then, when they're ready to debut, we'll all clap, cheer, drink... there could even be some Time Warping going on down in here. In the meantime, I squealed to THE MAN about all the reverts going on all willy-nilly; so be on the lookout for a Page Protection soon.--Digital Mischief 15:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhhh excuse me, I'm a woman, lol. Tribal44 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Tribal44


 * I hardly think admin is going to protect this page in order to stop editors from removing unreferenced material at this point. Tribal44 has not been mean spirited about this and niethr have I. I have attempted to look for references for this information and have even put out a call for others to help if it is possible.(elsewhere)


 * Going to Admin is your right, but don't exaggerate this into more than it is. I would like the information added if properly referenced but there is a musical numbers section where the information belongs when it is suitable for adding. The cast section is inappropriate mainly because it gives the false impression that Peter Hinwood sang his songs when he didn't.


 * Many apologies regarding the gender assumption, that was careless. I'm glad to see that we are working toward consensus, however... when reverts are done in place of discussion, I will always partner with an admin. Happy Holidays to everyone... and don't forget to sign your posts. ;o) --Digital Mischief 00:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As we all should do....and I myself have done numerouse times, however niether Tribal or myself overstepped our revert limit and I think we both have a right to be just a little offended by this.....even if we really aren't. Try to wait till something really does happen before warning members and talking about going to Admin.
 * Just saying. But with having said so....thanks for taking the time to protect the article!


 * HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL.......AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.43 (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rocky Horror is the credited Character's name
I have added a citation to this information. It should not be removed unless the consensus of editors here is that it is not necessary. But the Character is Rocky Horror.....didn't you wonder what the heck the title meant...or why it's credited that way in the cast list in the article itself?

It is credited at IMDB. It is credited in the film itself. It is even mentioned in a song from the original production. "Rocky Horror, you need piece of mind. I want to tell you that your doing just fine..."

At any rate please do not remove referenced and factual information until such time that it is clearly the consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted it when it was unreferenced, you've now referenced it so fair enough I've learned something new.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it can still be changed. I just don't know how consensus works anymore. Seems that Admin doesn't either so....at any rate thank you for allowing it to stand for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Which country?
The third sentence of the lead mentions "theaters across the country." Which country? The first sentence of the article mentions this is a British film yet the reception section discusses showings in the United States. Can someone more knowledgable of the subject clarify which country or countries are meant in the opening paragraph? --Allen3 talk 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw the change. Excellent point.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Eddie die in the stage version?
Dr. Frank-N-Furter murders Eddie in the film version. In the stage version, Eddie merely pops out of a Coke machine and then jumps back in at the end of the scene...

In the original stage production, Eddie was killed by Frank N Furter - he pretended to stab him with a mike stand. Has this been changed in recent versions? Apepper (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Current version Of The Rocky Horror Show is a revival that changed much of the script and dialogue to match the film. In it's original version (1973)(which can still be obtained to perform) Eddie was not murdered.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong, again. Eddie is killed by Frank in all versions of The Rocky Horror Show that Richard wrote, I put a scan from the original 1973 script up for all to see:  http://www.rockyradioonline.com/scan.jpg Additionally the 1973 version cannot still be obtained for performance rights.74.138.5.74 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The scan that was placed on this site differs from both the original script as released and as my copy still shows. Eddie pops back into the freezer chest. Obrien himself has commented on the violence and the difference between the film and the stage versions.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome IP users
IP users are humans to. Too often they are seen as merely vandalizing a page, but even registered users are IP users and make mistakes. IP users can quickly become irritating only when they do not follow basic guidelines. This is more than likely because they are new to Wikipedia and do not understand "Consensus", and continue to add information that, as new users, they simply do not understand as being inappropriate or un-encyclopedic.

The current situation the article now faces that threatens it's stability as a GA (Good Article rating) page is the addition of incorrect information about the Nixon speech that, even if the incorrect dating of the timeline of the film was left out, is too much unrelated and trivial information for an encyclopedia plot section of a film article to mention.

Timeline
The Criminologist as portrayed by Charles Gray, states the dating of the film in November;

"'It seemed a fairly ordinary night when Brad Majors and his fiancee Janet Weiss (two young ordinary healthy kids) left Denton that late November evening to visit Dr Everett Scott, ex. tutor and now friend of both of them.'"

Now, as one of the major contributors to the article, I left out any dating of film because the month is all that is stated and no year. So true a true dating can't be made from information found in the film itself, as well as the "Fan debate" and Trivia, which began the notion that dating of the film was incorrect. In reality, there is no way to know this. The date of the speech is in august, but as many point out, there is no reaction from the conservative American Couple to the disgraced resignation of a conservative President, so they must be listening to a rebroadcast that could be in a different year altogether.

But the simple fact is, the film is British made and the script based on the original play so many lines reamin unaltered and it may well be that O'Brien simply did not realise the date mix up or confusion it would stir. Just say'in.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other ways to add this information. Per consensus the editors on this page have removed the trivia section per MOS to achieve GA rating and be in keeping with GA criteria of MOS guidelines. Per the script and common knowledge of the general audiance of RHPS, the timeline is set by the narration of the characters and plot which the film does. The information about Nixon speech is only boarderline notable due to the clear writing of the script on this subject. Trivia does not establish notability.


 * Having said that the best compromise would be to incoporate the information in a notes section referenced from prose in the plot. This creates a danger that notes would end up being used for other trivia which may or may not be the agreed upon by other editors. Rome was not built in a day, so please be patient. There is no need to "Complete" the article. It will always be a work in progress. Please assume good faith and work with others.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Magenta: Riff-Raff's girlfriend?
Isn't Magenta Riff Raff's sister? Could someone verify this? Saturn orfeo (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is correct, but someone keeps changing it. It appears to be correct at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * She was also his girlfriend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.221.153 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Details for audience participation
While there are some glancing references regarding the "audience participation" there is no detail given as to the creative ways that the audience participates. Can this be added? --Quantling (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article here represents the encyclopedic information of the film produced, it's plot, production, reception etc as per Manuel of Style Guidelines. Too much information based on reaction is best kept on it's own article where great detail can be put into prose. While on the article about the film, only the most relevent and direct information is kept. It has been the consensus of the envilved editors that this is appropriate for this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
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) 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Cult film" and fandom
I think the Fans and the special actions which are often done when this film is shown should me mentioned and the links section might contain at least one link to a fan page (I added one but fear it will reverted) and one to a stage group. I just discovered that hidden in the main text there is (in the paragraph "reception") a link to an extra page Cult Following while writing this. I think I add it in "See Also" and remove the external link again. The 25 year edition contains what a Stage Group does: In the special Features section it can be turned on that some scenes are repeated as scenes filmed from inside a cinema with stage group acting in front of the screen. --Runeb2 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I came here looking up where the whole audience participation stuff started and how it progressed and there's not even a mention that most theaters across the country (world?) once a year, typically on Halloween, have midnight showings of TRHPS where most of the audience dresses up as characters and shouts things at the screen and throws popcorn and play with noisemakers, etc. All the especially FUN things that make the movie great! 76.20.107.40 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The film is great without any added "FUN things." Derekbd (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism
Shouldn't this be in the Cannibalism category considering poor Eddie's fate and all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.85.45 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Change to introduction
Changed the wording in the introduction so that it didn't imply that the LGBT lifestyle was a "sexual quirk." I would actually recommend the word quirk be removed, as for some reason it doesn't seem to encourage an objective standpoint, but maybe that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.130.246 (talk)

Unencyclopedic tone. It doesn't need to be used.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Article clean up and general fixes
The article has been somewhat ignored for a good deal of time and a number of problems seem to have found their way back. A number of general fixes have been made to the plot to keep technical minutiae out per Manual of Style (film). We do not need to add the cast credit to each character. Each song location is not needed as well. The article contains this information in entire sections and some in the Infobox as well. Please respect the need to follow wiki guidelines to keep the artcile both encyclopedic but accurate as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the talk page de-listing comments, several changes have been made to the article to bring it back into Wikipedia standards. All unreferenced claims have been removed and where pssible returned with prose to match existing or added inline citations.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First broadcast of The Rocky Horror Picture Show on network TV

 * I remember seeing the The Rocky Horror Picture Show on TV in 1994 and they said that it was the first broadcast on network TV and I was very surprised to see that the sponsor was the U.S. Army (which at that time still had the Don't ask, don't tell policy toward gays).  I recorded this event in my Rocky Horror Picture Show diary in which I have recorded each of the times so far that I have seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  However, I do not have the exact calendar date for this time I saw it as I do for the other times, only the year.  It seems to me this is a very important event because it shows how much more liberal society had become such that it was possible to broadcast The Rocky Horror Picture Show on network TV.  Of course this should have a reference, but I looked on Google and I couldn't find any references for it. If anyone can find a reference for this, it would be wonderful. Perhaps someone has books about The Rocky Horror Picture Show in which this information would be available, or perhaps someone in The Rocky Horror Picture Show fan club would know of a reference. Keraunos (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A Mad Scientist talk just found the reference. The correct date was October 13, 1993.  Good work A Mad Scientist! Keraunos (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

National Film Registry
I've been going through the latest reconsideration of this article and trying to fix the issues in it. One of them (besides the citations to an out of date/unreliable fan site) is the uncitedness of the National Film Registry lead note. This has been fixed, but the issue of it being out of place has not. From what I can tell, a series of bots/editors add a sentence to the lead of every article on the list, without putting it in the "reception" category or making it feel like it belongs there. Should it be moved to the "reception" section as a commentary of sorts on the status of the movie, or should it just remain in the intro without any elaboration later on in the article? RocioNadat 02:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added that and it should actually be in the body as well as the lead. But it is notable enough for the lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced content
This needs reliable sources to return. If anyone can reference this to a source that isn't a fan site please do. I will return to it shortly if no one else is able.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Includes primary sources
The following has primary source references but cannot be added in this manner and needs secondary sourcing or re-written in a manner consistent with policy and guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Garret Gafford
We do know that Garret has since been identified as the transgender performer and I have a newspaper source to add the name shortly, but give it some time please as I am also waiting for a contribution of an image to be uploaded and some further expansion of the Fandom section.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Date that this occurs
The article says that this occurs in November. But in the car, Brad and Janet are listening to Richard Nixon's resignation speech, which would imply that this occured in August. Is there a reason that November is indicated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.48.50 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, per the primary source (which is the film itself) the narrator (portrayed by Charles Grey) introduces the scene with this (bolding for emphasis):


 * "I would like, if I may, ...to take you on a strange journey. It seemed a fairly ordinary night when Brad Majors his fiancee Janet Weiss, two young, normal, healthy kids, left Denton that late November evening, to visit a Dr. Everett Scott, ex-tutor, now friend to both of them."


 * While this can be viewed as a continuity issue in the film, its screen writer and book author Richard O'Brien (of the stage play) playfully stated that it would be very much in character for Brad Majors, a true conservative, to have a cassette tape recording of the speech to listen to over and over. Pretty sure that was just a humorous way to deal with the issue but it makes me smile when I see the question.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Beckett?
Is there any link, other then the obvious, to Beckett's Not I? 31.53.189.102 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not clear on the question. Could you elaborate?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hilary Farr?
The cast list currently gives "Hilary Farr as Betty Munroe Hapschatt (as Hilary Labow)"

According to the article on her, Farr was born in 1962 which would have made her 13 when the movie was made.

I've de-wikilinked the line. As the Hapshatts were a very minor part in the movie, it could just as easily be removed. Obviously if there are appropriate citations, please feel free to reinstate it. Kiore (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No plot summary in lede?
How come there's zero plot summary in the lede?

This violates WP:LEAD, intro sect should function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2nd paragraph mentions characters named "Brad" and "Janet", but doesn't mention who they are or what they do in the movie. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Let me make some changes.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

TIME WARP
I added a GIF animation in the "music" section for show how to dance the "Time Warp", I think it is an interesting thing, especially because it's one of the songs most "famous" and popular of the show in all the world--Luca alberton (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Thank you for your good faith contribution. Unfortunately the gif is merely decorative and image use policy requires that the image have direct relevance to the article and section. Adding a cute animation is not encyclopedic or constructive for a GA rated article. I understand what you were attempting and if we expand the Cultural impact section we might be able to add a non free image of the actual instructions from the film itself. But the section needs to be larger to justify an image.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)