Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/Archive 3

Content questions
I'm in the process of copy editing the article and have come across some things that aren't already Wikipedia articles or readily available via a quick Internet search: I would appreciate any information on these topics. Thank you. Gmazeroff (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Who is David Foster?
 * 2) What is P.I.T.S.?


 * I'll try and find out. I've contacted the webmaster of TexasChainSawMassacre.net. --EclipseSSD (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The webmaster says he's got that information from an October, 1986 double issue of Cinefantastique with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Psycho. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that information, so perhaps someone who does can clarify those points. Gmazeroff (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing reversions
Two edits in particular by Bignole were reverted. Here are my justifications:

Bignole: "Jerry finds Pam's body in the freezer, which comes to life after he opens the freezer door..."


 * This is an example of a dangling modifier. I'm assuming Pam's body comes to life, not the freezer.

Bignole: "...where Leatherface and the hitchhiker bring their Grandpa (John Dugan) to take part in killing and eating Sally."


 * "Grandpa" in this context is a proper noun, specifically a character name. The possessive pronoun "their" is not appropriate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmazeroff (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This sentence--"In the freezer Jerry finds Pam's body, which comes to life after he opens the freezer door"--is horrid sounding (To clarify, I don't think my version sounded any better). We need to do something about it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "He opens the freezer and finds Pam's body, which suddenly springs to life" Better?     Paul    730  18:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds better (to me) than either version.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree -- thanks for the help with rewording the sentence. Gmazeroff (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Title
Question: Should the article title not have "chainsaw" as 1 word, rather than "chain saw" (2 words)? I realize that both forms of the word are generally accepted as names for the device, but the movie poster in the infobox seems to use the 1-word form. IMDb uses "chain saw", while Allmovie and Amazon both use "chainsaw". Judging by the movie posters and DVD covers on Allmovie and Amazon, I'm inclined to believe that the single-word form is more commonly used in this movie's title. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The actual movie uses two words. Marketing subsequently used one word after the initial release, but when the movie originally aired it was marketed as "Chain Saw". Plus, they have never changed the actual title screen of the movie, which has "Chain Saw".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an image of one of the original posters. Along with some website that uses the two word spelling. (Correction, they appear to use both interchangibly)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I was curious what the original film's title card used. I've never actually caught the movie early enough to see the title card; I usually tune in about 5 minutes into the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "title" is presented during the opening narration. Here is a screen capture of what it looks like. - My bad, totally forgot about one (been awhile since I watch the movie).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FA status
I know this article has had several failed FA nominations, having nominated it myself. But this is an article I'd really like to see reach FA status, but I cannot do this on my own. I've recently been editing a few times on this article and others, and it'd be a great achievement if this article did, eventually, reach FA status. Anybody interested in helping out should speak now or forever hold their peace. I'll see if I can find some more sources for this film. Any thoughts/comments? Cheers, --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

GA?
Does anybody have any idea why the tool server on Selected articles for WikiProject:Horror states that the article is only B-class? and if so, would it be possible to fix it? Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it on an automatic update, or does it require someone to physically change it? If so, it could just not have been updated in awhile.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit in progress
EclipseSSD requested that this article be copy edited in preparation for FA status, so here I am. I will try to get through the article in the next few days and will post improvement suggestions when I'm finished.

As I go through the sections, I may add inline tags to information that needs to be reworded/expanded for clarification, etc. I don't like mucking up articles, but I find that's one of the easiest ways to bring attention to things that need work. If you need to edit the article while I'm doing my thing, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll kindly excuse myself.  mo   talk  03:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for copyediting this article, and I'll see what I can do about your suggestions etc. I have removed the sentence "However in recent years" replaced it with "However, the film has also been considered a classic among critics.....". Would you say that was better? Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have clarified the plot section. First, I identified the grave as belonging to Sally and Franklin's grandfather. I tried to clarify, to my best ability, that it is an old family home that no one is using any longer. They never really say why they are going there, just that they are. I also clarified how Kirk went from looking for a swimming hole to looking for gas.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bignole. Your rewording looks great.  mo   talk  01:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarify
Could someone please help reword the beginning of the plot summary, where it is tagged clarify. I'm not sure on how to reword them properly. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Development section footnote
My apologies, when I split off the camera and distribution information from the beheading scene info I thought the footnote at the end of the original paragraph led to an online source. I was at work at the time and didn't have full internet access. I now see that the source is a book. Can one of the regular contributors add a footnote to the beheading scene paragraph. Thanks!  mo   talk  01:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a search of the Google Books preview of Haines' book and could not find a reference to the beheading scene, so it appears that a different source was used for that information but not properly cited.  mo   talk  03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Monitoring fee?
I'm unsure how to reword the "monitoring fee" sentence in the financing section. This website,, talks about it, but I'm not sure how to go about explaining it. Also, I am trying to find out who is P.I.T.S. This is about 35 years ago now, and I couldn't find anything on a quick Google search. Any ideas? --EclipseSSD (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Second graph in lead: essential info?
I've reached the Filming section, the first half of which is repeated in the second paragraph of the lead. To me, the information about the temperatures and camera speed is notable but not essential to understanding the film, its reception, its legacy, etc. What do y'all think about removing it from the lead?  momoricks   make my day  06:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got no problem with that. --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really appear to be any argument against its removal. I'll admit, it has always kind of bugged me. The lead should summarize, not just regergitate (sp) info from other sections, and that bit is way too specific for the lead. At 28kb, two really solid paragraphs are about all you really need. Now, that's solid paragraphs, and not skimpy ones.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I removed all of the second graph with the exception of the filming locations and dates.  momoricks   make my day  04:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

P.I.T.S
I've asked around, and it seems nobody really knows who P.I.T.S. is or was. That sentence probably should be removed. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the P.I.T.S information is important to the article, so I guess we'll have to leave it as ambiguous information for now. It seems the only possible way to get more info on the company is to look at a hard copy of Cinefantastique, as the cited article doesn't appear to be accessible online. Perhaps it's accessible in some public libraries. Mine only has hard copies of 2005 editions.  momoricks   (make my day)  01:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in Reception section
I have some questions/suggestions related to quotes in the Reception section.


 * Mike Emery's quote in the second paragraph appears to be from a 1998 review, which can be seen in its entirety by clicking the link under the quote on the source site. Its currently location in the article makes it appear to be a review of the original release. I'd like to move it to the fourth paragraph with the "more recently" quotes.
 * Roger Ebert's quote in the third paragraph is problematic. The first sentence is almost his exact words, yet it is not in quotes. When compared to the source text, the second sentence appears to be minor synthesis. I suggest pulling two or more sentences from the review and connecting them with ellipses.
 * Does anyone know whether the Robin Wood quoted in the third paragraph is this Robin Wood?
 * In the fourth paragraph, the second sentence of the Variety quote is essentially a repeat of the film's relation to Psycho pointed out in the Development section. I suggest replacing it or removing it.
 * Kairo's quote at the end doesn't appear to be notable in any way. Kairo is apparently a Dutch Classic-Horror.com user with a wife and two kids and a passion for slasher flicks. I'd like to remove it.

--  momoricks   (make my day)  01:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I fully agree with your suggestions. As for the Robin Wood one, it most likely is that critic. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I addressed the issues, including pulling a quote from the Roger Ebert review. I couldn't find anything useful to replace the second sentence in the Variety quote, so I removed it.  momoricks   (make my day)  23:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Development section
I'm not sure how to reword that part about the injuries during filming. I've also removed the reference with no relevance any more to the section. The photo in the development section should probably be moved to the filming section. --EclipseSSD (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the part about injuries because there was no way to reword it and, it appears as if the editor who added it may have confused information about the original with info about the remake, which is the main topic of the cited article. I moved the image to the Filming section, as well as the last three paragraphs of the Development section because they discuss the aspects of the filming.  momoricks   (make my day)  01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

External link for Junction House
I'd like to remove the external link to the Junction House website. It is a promotional website for the restaurant and does not provide enough further info on the topic to warrant inclusion. Thoughts?  momoricks   (make my day)  01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism issues
I am encountering some information that appears to be directly copied and pasted from the source. I will do my best to reword things when I see them; however, I want to remind article contributors that this is a huge no no. It will not make it to FA status if it contains any copied info.  momoricks   (make my day)  01:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been a difficult article to work on. Mostly because of sources and other information. We've certainly come a long way since 6 months ago, but I doubt it'll reach FA status before 2009. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, always a work in progress. Well, at least I can work some copy editing magic on it. :)  momoricks   (make my day)  02:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"True story" marketing
The "true story" myth is an interesting aspect of the film that could be covered in more detail. Right now it is discussed in a single sentence: The film found success with a broader audience after it was falsely marketed as being a "true story". Snopes is used as the source, which isn't necessarily problematic (see: WikiProject Reference Investigation/Snopes); however, the Snopes article has a source list at the bottom. I suggest looking for those articles and pulling the information directly from them instead of or in addition to Snopes. I found a book source here that mentions the film slogan: "What happened was real".  momoricks   (make my day)  02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Two huge quote boxes
Do anyone think we could trim either the info in the quote boxes down, or flatout paraphrase the longer one so that it can be used as prose in the section? Right now those two boxes are bunching up the section unnecessarily.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that they are awkward, particularly the second one. I removed the first sentence because it provided no new information. The rest of it should be paraphrased. A quote within a quote is awkward, and the use of "upcoming" dates the information and could confuse readers.  momoricks   (make my day)  05:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the quote of Patrick Lussier. It might be worth finding a place in the article for it, but it shouldn't be in a quote about someone else's opinion. As I was cleaning out the unnecessary spaces and blank sections from the citation templates I noticed an issue with the quoted texts within the article. Most of the time they fail WP:PUNC. That is, there are a lot of quotes where the period is on the inside of the quote, but it should really be on the outside. The rule of the thumb is usually, unless you're quoting a complete statement, then the punctuation goes on the outside. If you are quoting a complete statement, then it should not be presented in a manner that indicates that it is part of the Wikipedia sentence (e.g., John stated that "I love The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." <-- This is incorrect. It should be, John stated, "I love The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.").   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)