Talk:The Tic Code

Another copyvio
This is definitely a copyvio, but the film is notable and award winning and I can easily rewrite the entry to a notable and sourced entry. I can't start on it for another hour or two, so if that's too long to wait, I'll understand, but I can definitely finish it tonight. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a first pass, just to put something in place and to remove the copyvio. Admins need to address the ongoing issue here; I'll work on it further tonight.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job there. I've expanded it further myself and added a film infobox. ~Matticus TC 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I've deleted the infringing revisions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all; I was trying to get out the door, and while I've always intended to eventually write this article, I didn't want to do it in such a big hurry :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great job. I've added "The Tic Code" DVD Label picture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieTigerChucky (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone
This edit turned the article form an encyclopedic tone to a promotional tone; I suggest reverting. Also, pls read WP:MOSLINK regarding linking only the first term, and WP:MSH about section headings. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this artical does not have enough info.
I have watched this movie a lot of times and even saw a trailer of it on YouTube. But, I think it needs more info and I can't find a way to explain it to make sence or neatly, so could some one got to http://www.youtube.com/ and search The Tic Code - Trailer (1999), and find a way to add more info about the movie and add Headline text saying "Plot" and "Story behind the plot" for "Story behind the plot", is their a way to put the info This was written by Polly Draper and etc. As well as adding this is Draper's first shot at writing, but her new film and TV series called The Naked Brothers Band], an ebullient [[mockumentry about Draper's kids Nat and Alex Wolff, which is based on the real life band they formed in pre-school, and which Nat wrote all the songs performed in the movie and as well in the TV series (not exactly like that but very similar), I just wanted to give you an idea on how I think it should be done. Thanx! --AnnieTigerChucky 02:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to mention the kids' ventures here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But is there a way to add more info about The Tic Code movie and the trailer for The Tic Code from youtube.com. Thanx! --AnnieTigerChucky 03:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Info about Polly Draper is in her article. Youtube is not a reliable source, so we don't use it to report on the movie.  We report what reliable sources say about the movie, and they weren't particularly glowing.  I've seen the movie several times, and I'm not inspired to add anything, since my views agreed with the critics.  It was a mediocre movie of interest to people with tics and little else. IF someone else wants to pour through what reliable sources said and add that, it would be fine, but Youtube isn't a source.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanx! But what about the headline titles I have talked about earlier. --AnnieTigerChucky 03:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking; what headline titles? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * oh, I see what you mean know, plot and story behind the plot. Story behind the plot is not a standard heading on films.  The Film Project has guidelines which you can find in the box above.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WikiProject Films/Style guidelines.  Also, if you're thinking that "story behind the plot" would be the backstory about Michael Wolff's Tourette's, you would need to source the story to reliable sources so that what you write isn't original research.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a reliable source for the plot http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tic_code/about.php, can someone add this info without copy and pasting it that is copyright, I cant think of another way of typing besides how it says it. --AnnieTigerChucky 04:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the plot title. --AnnieTigerChucky 04:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Can someone help add this info that was deleted whenever I go to edit page it still shows but it does not show on the artical. --AnnieTigerChucky 04:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dates

 * 

Dear wikipedians, I put that their, because their has always been a confusion with the year.

References: 1998: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/177439/The-Tic-Code/overview http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=131381&Tab=reviews&CID=13 http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ticcode.php http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800022078/bio http://science.education.nih.gov/home2.nsf/DC+Area+Programs/++Science+in+the+Cinema/F5A34483EAB5870185257426005C0961#theticcode

2000: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tic_code/

So, I just assumed based on my knowledge. Also, an audiobook on the iTunes Store. Has an interview with Terry Gross on the radio station, Fresh Air interviewing Polly Draper and Michael Wolff in 2000 about The Tic Code. At the end, Terry Gross said The Tic Code releases into theaters today. I should of discussed it first before making a huge edit and I apologize for that. Thanx for listening! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's funny... I've put 1999 because IMDb says so; there you can see that the confusion between 1999 and 2000 is obviously due to this film being shown in 1999 at the Berlin Film Festival, but commercially released only in 2000. It could be that filming was completed in 1998. Still, the discrepancy between these sources is quite odd. GregorB (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear GregorB,

In this case I think we should put by the earliest release date, 1998 instead of 1999 or 2000. I will also add these references to the article. What do you or other users think? AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need all of these sources in the article, some of them (including IMDb) aren't particularly reliable, and before mucking up the article with contradictory sources, we should sort it out on the talk page. I haven't had time to look at it, but I will as soon as I can.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear SandyGeorgia, GregorB and other users, I think we should do the same thing we did with age of Christopher George Marquette's character in the film. I started doing that, but then saw your (SandyGeorgia's) reply and reverted the edit back. Thanx everyone! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't have time to get to this for a few more days, Annie; I don't mind if you go ahead and give it a try, but please understand that I haven't looked at it yet, and we should carefully read every source and use only the most reliable sources. Rather than complicate the issue, remember, the movie wasn't received well, hence was released direct to video rather than in theatres, so there were some holdups and changes along the way.  We need to carefully study the sources and present that info according to what the most reliable sources say.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * AnnieTigerChucky, from the sources you gave, 1998 looks pretty convincing. All Movie Guide agrees. GregorB (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation dump

 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was all in the plot section; I intend to remove them, but didn't want to lose what may be useful information. Steve  T • C 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Still needs a Themes section. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * However, this is not essential for a GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References #4 still broken Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Acceptable as clearly a reference to a reputable dead-teree publication. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Just the broken link and Themes section need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think it meets the criteria, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion
The article's plot needs an expansion before winning a GA Award. Can someone expand it? ATC. Talk 02:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)