Talk:The X-Files: I Want to Believe/Archive 1

Proposed merger
Proposed merger of Untitled X-Files Sequel into The X-Files (film). Long in development hell, as the article itself says, "the film's production status is uncertain (there is no production green light, and there may not be an agreed-upon budget) and the final title is unknown." - as such, and as per WP:NF, the relevant and non-OR information from the article (of which there is little; most is based upon supposition and the hope of things to come), should be placed in the sequel section of the original X-Files film, and a redirect put in its place. Also listed here. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support merger based on WP:NF -- this project has been kicking around for a long time. However, I think it'd be better suited at X-Files but under a better section heading, like "Announced featured film".  Actually, that main article doesn't seem to have any prose of the first film (as the other "Film" section is about influences on the series.  Any ideas about where the best placement would be? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm currently knocking up a paragraph or three which may suffice, leaving aside its eventual placement. On that, I'm genuinely unsure. Maybe one of the regular contributors to this article has an idea? Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've knocked something together, to be put in the appropriate section (if this proposal is carried). Take a look, people; improve at will. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 14:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Against - Separate films generally have separate articles, whether in-development, released, or in "development hell" as you say. Most of the article is not based on supposition or hope of things to come, but on public statements, which are listed and referenced. I see no reason to merge. Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:48, 10/16/2007


 * The notability guidelines for films dictates that films not in production do not yet warrant their own article. "Generally" is an untrue statement, and there has been a consensus toward merging uncertain projects to other articles.  Many of which are seen here.  There's no reason to ignore the guideline, considering that items like Spider-Man 4, The Hobbit (2009 film), Jurassic Park IV are merged comfortably, even having public statements.  If an article was based on supposition or things to come, it would be deleted under WP:CRYSTAL.  This is just a move of the content for a film that may never be, and it would be perpetually stubby as a result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Against - Agree with above statement. Bronks 15:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support merge - Separate films do not have separate articles when they are in "development". Those articles get created, but they also get proded, speedily deleted, AfD'd or merge proposed as soon as they are seen by editors who are aware of the notability guidelines for films. First, "development" can be subjective, because saying "a script is being written" is like saying "I'd like to make a movie". It means nothing in regards to whether the film will be made. There are plenty of examples of films that were supposed to have been made, got into pre-production, but then stopped (see Superman film series and Spider-Man film series for examples of how 20 years can go by with countless potential films and yet nothing happens). As for "development hell", unless there is truly something notable about the "DH" then it doesn't need its own article. Rarely is a film is so much development hell that it creates "significant coverage by reliable secondary sources" (that's in the general notability guideline). This articles suffers from lack of summarization. Wikipedia is not a news organization, or a media house. Why this article believes we need to catalog every single tiny event that mentions this movies is beyond me. We summarize for a reason. If someone says "the movie is on," and then a month later comes back and says "no, I was wrong." You can state that in a very simple sentence. This: "On July 19, 2007, the Untitled X-Files Sequel (2009) was added to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)." is not relevant to Wikipedia. First, IMDb adds films to their database the moment someone breathes a word about them, regardless of any truth to the matter. You have a day by day breakdown of all this talk on people canceling schedules for the movie, it will begin filming soon, yet at the very end you have Duchovny stating they haven't even been greenlit yet. Summary, summary, summary is this articles problem. Proper summarization would show that it doesn't even qualify to be split from the original film for size reasons, because there is so much that needs to be cut and trimmed.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought I was aware of the guidelines but those seem to have changed in late July to exclude films in pre-production. Even films currently shooting apparently no longer constitute notability, but in that case there's an exception for otherwise notable productions, which this one would be (has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), only it isn't shooting yet.


 * Regardless, the specific notability guideline for film really only needs to apply if a subject hasn't received enough coverage to qualify for general notability (ie. a film is notable just because it's a film that's been produced shot and had a major release). This, however, merits an article based solely on general notability. It's had major interest and coverage from just about every news source that has anything to do with movies, and even more so if you count interviews, talk shows, radio shows, etc. We might be tempted to classify articles like this and say it's a film and therefore if it doesn't satisfy the notability guide on film then it's not notable, but this is incorrect. What the article's subject can be classified as is simply a notable subject, and just because it can also be classified as a film article doesn't mean it should be denied its own separate article when it is very generally notable. Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:05, 10/16/2007


 * Indeed, Bignole; excise the OR and trivia, and we're left with but a few paragraphs, surely not enough to warrant its own article yet. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed all the OR I could find and added references for other statements. If there is still more OR in the article please tell me where you see it. Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:27, 10/16/2007


 * Film articles are not current events articles. This page does nothing but relay every breath of this film, no matter how relevant it actually is the production of the movie. We know the film hasn't been green-lit, so there is no production. Anyone can write a script, and if someone has read a script, but the film hasn't been greenlit then I have to think that maybe they weren't contracted to write a script in the first place. You have a summary section that basically summarizes what is being said in the section below. That's all that is necessary. The article appears to deliberately repeat itself. Duchovny says they will start filming later in the year, when? Vagueness is one of the reasons we don't create pages for films that aren't in production, because vagueness means there isn't a definite answer yet. As Liquidfinale has shown in his sandbox, that is what this page would look like with proper summarization and prose writing. That isn't enough to warrant a separate article. To point out things that aren't summarized: "On April 17, 2007 Frank Spotnitz made the following post on his personal blog: "IT'S TRUE. Several people have e-mailed to ask about reports that the second 'X-Files' feature is finally in the works. A script is indeed in development, but I'm afraid that's all I can say. Thanks for your good wishes and support all these years." --this is one example. Summary style would turn this into: "On April 17, 2007, Frank Spotnitz stated that a script for a second X-Files film was in development.''" --That's it. You don't need exorbitant quotes from people, just paraphrase.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the relevance of classifying this as a film or a current event. It is simply a notable subject, according to the notability guideline. Liiquidfinale's version summarizes the list of quotes very well though, so I've replaced the main brunt of the article with it. Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:17, 10/16/2007


 * See the notability guideline. It states there that just because something may meet the criteria for being notable--i.e. there is coverage from reliable sources--does not mean that it warrants its own page and may be better as part of a larger topic. Seeing as this page doesn't really have anything significant in regards to the film going on, no production, no official confirmation that the film will be worked on soon, there doesn't seem to be a real reason why it needs a separate article other than "other articles exist".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that anywhere in the notability guideline. I see "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context", but we already have sources -- many of them. Furthermore, notability exists to tell us precisely which topics deserve their own articles. Either it is notable and deserves its own article, or it is not notable and should be merged into another article. Also, just because an article is short doesn't mean a merge is warranted, again, if the topic is notable. Furthermore, the lack of "going-on" production information or confirmation of a greenlight are not reasons to say an article is not warranted. This is a notable subject that has had a lot of third-party coverage and a lot of interest from the public. It may not be a long article (yet) but that is no reason to merge it. Similarly, the precedent of having had previous in/pre-production sequels articles merged is no argument. Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:29, 10/16/2007


 * Oops, that ones been rewritten...used to mention that. Notability is a content guideline, not an article existence guideline. WP:NOTFILM does state: "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun." -- I'm not seeing why those 4 paragraphs cannot exist on the first film's page. It doesn't seem to be an issue in this version. A notable subject that does not have enough information to support its own article is what it is. Also, our Merging criteria mention size of an article. "Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Since we don't know when the film will start shooting, or even if the film will start shooting, there isn't a "reasonable amount of time" to believe the article will be expanded beyond more "maybe it will, maybe it won't" dialogue, which probably shouldn't be stated anyway if it isn't something new. No reason not to merge. Put in the original film's article, and clean up that one. No reason to have 2 undeveloped articles when you can have 1 article with the same information. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Notability is a content guideline, not an article existence guideline." -- You may want to read the notability guideline through one more time. Notability specifically does not limit article content. It is there purely to tell us which topics warrant their own articles.
 * As for "our merge criteria", the film being greenlit is not the only way the article can possibly get longer. First of all, I don't think the article is all that short to begin with. It's far from a stub and has a lot of real content. Secondly, all the information that's there didn't result from production or shooting, so the article can get longer if more events surrounding the subject occur. Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:43, 10/16/2007


 * When a film enters production, it is nearly guaranteed to be released. There is an established script, a full cast, filming and production design, editing, marketing, release, box office performance, critical reaction, awards and nominations, societal impact, and possible controversies.  That is the "real content" of a film article, not statements that talk about moving toward production.  I have no issue with tracing the development history of a project, but it is part of a film when it exists -- when it is not, it's part of the source material or the intention of the director, screenwriter, or producer.  There is no reason to expect more coverage to come -- Jurassic Park IV has coverage about impeding news, so does Fahrenheit 451 (2008 film), but it doesn't happen like they say it will. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the film is being produced or guaranteed a release is of little consequence when the subject has garnered so much attention from third parties already. As I've already illustrated, this subject is a notable topic under general notability. Its possible classification as "a film article" does not mean it must be notable under the more specific notability guide for film. The topic is already generally notable. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:01, 10/16/2007


 * This is why I proposed the location of the content to The X-Files, which would deal with all matters related to the franchise. A developing project is notable under this franchise, so the content is completely appropriate there.  When a specific event happens in a celebrity's life, there is multiple coverage about it, but here it's treated as WikiNews or as a part of that celebrity's article.  Information about this project perpetually in development is better housed at the franchise article until it can be shown that it will be a film of its own to warrant the layout of a film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Notable under this franchise" is a contradiction in terms as far as our policies go. Notability in Wikipedia terms means that the topic deserves its own article -- it never means that it deserves a place in another article. Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:52, 10/16/2007


 * (EC) You mean this new thing: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." Well, right now the topic of this article is "will the movie get made", which no one is really discussing. More than half the sources are primary sources discussing the actors' beliefs on whether the film will get made. The other sources are basically reporting the same information but from different dates. Even Liquid's summarized version could probably be trimmed some more. Duchovny and Anderson are mentioned to be returning twice, it is only necessary to mention it once. That isn't the only place. Considering that the actual article size is about 2 kb, that's rather small. I wouldn't call that "far from a stub", though it wouldn't be categorized as one that is for sure. As for your "If", it doesn't meet the "reasonable time" criteria of merging. Nothing says the film will get made, nothing says there will be any further development in the news. Since Notability is not a policy, but a guideline, and Notability (films) clearly state that it should be merged to a larger topic, I'm still not seeing the reason for objection, especially when the amount of information is so small (smaller if we removed some of the redundancies).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The events aren't redundant, because we're describing a chain of events in a developing story. Most of the sources are not primary, they are third-party -- if you're going to classify reports of statements made by parties involved in the subject to be primary sources despite there having been reported by reliable news sources, then I think you'd be against most of the third-party sources in most articles. Thats not the definition of a primary source. A primary source would be the movie itself, or a blog written by an involved party directly making a statement. We have some of those in this article, but we also have plenty of bona fide third-party sources. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:10, 10/16/2007
 * (EC) Describing that they are confirmed to be working on the film twice isn't redundant? Primary sources would be interviews, and 8 or 9 of the sources are direct interviews. This quote--"Every year or two they talk about it again, but it seems like it might be for real this time"--is unnecessary since you just stated that since the lawsuits are done that the film looks like it will be moving forward. This=-"Duchovny had stated that both he and Gillian Anderson were ready to return to their roles, and that the film would begin production that year."--is the second time you mention that they are attached to the roles. This--"Duchovny confirmed that a sequel would be made, stating that "we're all signed on" and..."--is the third time you state that they are on the film. Unless there was controversy with them on the film, then off the film, we don't need to be reminded that they are working on the film 3 times. That's just obvious redundancy. I could trimmed more of other paragraphs.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am a strong advocate of shaping the development history of a film as I consider it part of the film's background. However, WP:NNC says, "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article," and the aforementioned guidelines are the inclusion guidelines on the upper right, under which WP:NF is located and says that a separate article is not warranted if the film has not entered production.  Furthermore, WP:N says, "Articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future."  You've said yourself that "the article can get longer if more events surrounding the subject occur." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (after conflict) Sure, it's a developing story/article. But as yet, and as per guidelines, why would it be so wrong for it to go in either the X-Files or the Fight the Future articles? For my part, were I to be looking for information about a sequel, I'd look there first (and I do agree, by the way, that my version could do with a trim; it was written in haste to see what such a version might look like). Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the topic already qualifies for general notability under WP:N. It doesn't need to qualify for notability specifically under the film notability guideline. The topic is already generally notable. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:24, 10/16/2007


 * But being notable doesn't mean it needs its own article. I've already asked you about incident in celebrity lives -- if a star gets married, lots of independent sources will cover that event, but it's still housed at that star's article.  Even the collapse of I-35W Mississippi River bridge doesn't have its own article.  The general notability guideline dictate for attention to be paid to the inclusion guidelines, and you haven't given a reason to go against that in light of other successful implementations of WP:NF. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent is not an argument. And being notable does, in Wikipedia terms, mean that a topic warrants its own article. Read the notability guideline. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:31, 10/16/2007


 * Stop citing WP:N repeatedly. That is what we are discussing, as well as WP:NF.  You fail to recognize that the notability guideline dictates attention to be paid to the inclusion guidelines (including WP:NF) to determine whether or not a separate article is warranted.  The information is better housed at the franchise article because it is a project emerging under the name of this franchise.  Additionally, so-called "precedent" goes by another name: consensus.  The consensus shows where to place content about attempted films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "the notability guideline dictates attention to be paid to the inclusion guidelines (including WP:NF) to determine whether or not a separate article is warranted" -- It doesn't dictate that anywhere that I can see. You're telling me to stop citing WP:N in a discussion about whether or not a a topic warrants its own article -- that's a little ridiculous. WP:N is there specifically for these situations. And precedent and consensus are not synonymous at all. Consensus is something that needs to be demonstrated on this talk page. The argument that consensus has been achieved in other similar instances is precedent, and it doesn't directly affect the outcome here. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:41, 10/16/2007


 * Read WP:NOTFILM, it's a guideline as well. Apparently, it says that this page doesn't need to exist until filming has begun. Since that guideline was created to apply specifically to film pages, and this is a film page, I'm assuming that we should follow that guideline. That's just me. The general notability guideline does not contradict the film notability guideline, the film notability guideline simply expands on what to do with films not yet filmed. Not everything deserves its own article, regardless of whether it has 5 sources or 50 sources. Some things are not notabile by themselves. You are confusing a bunch of interviews basically talking about the same thing with significant coverage on the topic at hand. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage on the "development hell" of the film. There are tons of interviews where Duchovny constantly plugs the sequel and says "it's going to happen", yet no officials have stated that. What again has made this project notable, beyond Duchovny constantly talking about it himself?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been many articles on the sequel outside of interviews with cast members, some of which are referenced here, but even so, if third-party sources find the topic notable enough to write about, it's notable for our sake too -- even if those third parties chose to report interviews or statements. If the fact that the project has remained stagnant for so long despite the support by the involved parties has been reason enough to report on it, then that is reason enough for us to report on it as well. This movie has been planned for 5 years yet hasn't been made, and yet, it is still reported on frequently. That's a notable topic in and of itself, and it's exactly what this article seems to be about right now. I see nothing wrong with that. Would it make you more comfortable if the article were renamed to "Stangnancy of the Untitled X-Files Sequel Project"? Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:51, 10/16/2007


 * We do not "report" at Wikipedia. We write articles on notable subjects. This project history goes from 1998 to 2005, that isn't a lot of reporting. The title of the article is not in question. You have not given a reason for the need for a separate article other than "Notability guideline says it's ok". First, the general notability guideline is for general topics, hence the reason why the film notability guideline was formed. Films are a special subject because they get talked about and never produced often. Right now, there is nothing in this article that says "we need a whole page to ourselves". The size of the article, the fact that it isn't in production, the lack of sources actually commenting beyond simply interviews instead of actually discussing why a sequel to the first film is so important, says that it does not need a separate page. You are defending this page like it's your baby, when no one said the topic couldn't be reported...just that it doesn't have enough information to support its own article. The general notability guideline does not talk about future films, the guideline on film notability does. Why do you feel that it needs its own page? Simply because it the general notability guideline says its ok (even when it doens't cover future films)?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support merge. The WP:NF is very clear and dry on the matter. No one is suggesting deleting sourced material, so opposition to this seems (to me) unreasonable. Girolamo Savonarola 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support merge. As of this time, the only people commenting on this proposed 'sequel' (which would actually not be a sequel to the 1998 X-Files film) are those who have a vested interest in it going forward, and are not only unreliable but in the main, uninformed about the film's progress (or lack thereof). All you can do with an article about a proposed movie is to report the latest comments from Duchovny and Anderson, as they give interviews promoting other projects, and are inevitably asked about the film. When this happens, they apparently just repeat whatever they have heard most recently from Chris Carter--who has never directed a feature film, and hasn't had an entertainment project get the go-ahead in over five years, in spite of repeated attempts to get this and other projects off the ground. Duchovny and Anderson can't 'confirm' anything but their long-known desire to do another movie. They have wanted to do another movie since before the last one came out, so their willingness to participate isn't noteworthy information. Obviously all the people who would be paid to make such a movie (regardless of its success) are in favor of making it. When and if 20th Century Fox decides to make the film, and gives it a green light, it will be much publicized, and that would be the time to start an article specifically devoted to the movie. Until then, the current one paragraph "Future of the X-Files" chapter in the main X-Files article, while far from perfect, pretty much covers everything we actually know for a fact. And at that time, all the hopeful comments from Duchovny, Anderson, and Carter would become irrelevant, because there would be actual information about a greenlit film project, with a budget, a production timetable, etc. At the present time, there is simply the aspiration for a film, and that does not merit its own article.Xfpisher 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Green light at last?
According to this site:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=38875

The movie now has the green light, shooting to start on December 10th 2007. So can this page be re-instated? Gaunt 17:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. But as we all know, something, anything could halt or delay shooting; therefore, in accordance with the notability guidelines for films, the article should not be recreated until filming is confirmed to have started. Best regards, Steve  T • C 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Secrecy
I'd like to expand on the whole secrecy aspect of this project as it's pretty interesting. Maybe add a section on it -- all the fake script pages they made for auditions, the project codename (done one), etc. If anyone has good sources for this stuff please let me know, or just add 'em.  Equazcion •✗/C • 14:12, 12/22/2007

Article structure
I've revised the article to have a Development section, following the project from November 2001 to the beginning of production in December 2007. If talks of a sequel film preceded this date, feel free to add cited information. There are a few items that need to be addressed, so here they are: Considering the fan base of this franchise, I hope that this article can be maintained to avoid rumors and gossip that I've noticed are commonplace with such topics. New information should be cited by reliable sources, and scoopers do not count. If the studio is keeping the details under wraps, it's unlikely that this article will be able to contain verifiable information leading up to the film's release. Since this is the case, the article should not serve as a rumor mill. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 08:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) How should the "Plot" section be written? I think it should be re-defined as Premise, but I'm not sure how much to say.  I don't want to piece details together to synthesize a possible premise.
 * 2) The "Done One" subsection seems irrelevant; the only detail that seems worth mentioning is that the project is codenamed "Done One". Details like the anagram and the Directors Guild production list don't seem necessary to include.
 * 3) The article currently uses the TOCnestright template, which is completely non-standard as far as film articles go. However, Equazcion believes that the template is better, while I don't see why there's a reason to stray from the default usage.  If others can weigh in on this matter, please share your thoughts.


 * The separate Done One section was just my attempt at separating the development hell history of this project from current events. I'd be open to changing that section's title. I do think the anagram item is interesting and should be kept in though. The Director's Guild production list is there because that's how people began to figure out about Done One -- some investigative reporter looked at it and put the pieces together, and now it's pretty much verifiable that Done One is the project's codename (I believe Variety or Hollywood Reporter is the source on that). If we can verify that Done One is the project name, then the production list info for Done One is very relevant as a primary source of information for that project, one item of which is the director's name.  Equazcion •✗/C • 08:57, 12/24/2007


 * As far as TOCnestright, this is purely an aesthetic choice. What is "standard" for film articles (which we're just defining based on what's been done before and not on guidelines) is not really relevant. The default TOC is used in almost every article -- but if there's a better way, why not start using it? This method allows wrapping of text around the TOC without all the unnecessary white space. If anyone can give a good reason to use the default TOC over the nested one, aside from precedent, I'm listening.  Equazcion •✗/C • 09:00, 12/24/2007


 * (edit conflict) I understand about the separation; thanks for that. Do you feel the Development section covers enough or too much?  I skipped a few citations that basically reiterated, "We're going to make it," over the course of six years.  Regarding Done One, though, why can't we cite ComingSoon.net about the project's codename and be done with it?  It seems like an awful lot of unnecessary sleuthing over the codename, especially the trivial anagram.  Can we not include the PDF as an external link with the note (under codename "Done One")?  The ComingSoon.net citation in the body will substantiate that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to TOCnestright, if it's so great, why isn't it the default? One issue I perceive with it is the pile-up of templates caused on the right side.  In addition, the TOC can be hidden at anytime to get rid of the white space.  I'm not sure why you're contesting precedent so much -- the TOC was designed to have this default presentation for whatever reason instead of how TOCnestright is presented.  So why does personal aesthetic preference supercede precedent? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your ideas for Done One seem fine to me. Although again I think the anagram should stay in somehow, the production list doesn't necessarily need to make an appearance in the main text, and can be moved to external links. TOCnestright isn't the default because human intervention is required to make sure templates/photos combined with the width of the TOC don't take up too much space especially on small or low-resolution monitors. TOCnestright has a maximum-width parameter for this purpose, although in this case it's not required because none of the section headers are currently long enough to make the TOC width obtrusive. A nested TOC is better, in the end, although not across-the-board for all articles, and it hasn't yet been automated to the point that it can be set as the default for Wikipedia. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion  •✗/C • 09:16, 12/24/2007


 * I think you've done a good job of summing up the development hell aspect accurately without going into too much detail. You're right, there's no need to go through each and every time Duchovny said "Now it's happening." <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion •✗/C • 11:32, 12/24/2007

Cast columns
Reasons given for a single column cast list is that a)that's the way it's usually done and b) a table makes it harder for newbies to edit. The way it's usually done is not a good reason. And in all my time editing on Wikipedia I have never seen anyone shy away from doing anything because it adds complexity to the code that makes editing more difficult for newbies. That's simply outrageous. This is how newbies learn: by doing. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion •✗/C • 13:10, 12/24/2007


 * Using columns for cast sections is non-standard because editors have realized that it fails a cost/benefit analysis. The cost is that it's more difficult to work with and adds unncessary markup. When future names are added to the cast section the columns will need to be manually adjusted or they'll be unbalanced. The benefit is that it saves three lines of white space. I don't think it looks better at all; in fact a little whitespace adds to the readability. I would like to hear some more compelling reasons for using columns. Chaz Beckett 13:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I've never seen anyone make any formatting decisions based on how much code it adds. We choose the format that's best for the page. The difficulty of working with the code does not enter into the equation. If the table coding is too difficult for you, just let me know when that section needs editing and I'll take care of it for you. The benefit is that it is a more efficient use of space. Between a single-column list and the default TOC it makes for a lot of unnecessary scrolling, especially on low-resolution monitors. If I'm starting a revolution then so be it -- the way things have been done up until now does not need to dictate how things are done in the future. Let's try something that might possibly be better. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion •✗/C • 13:22, 12/24/2007


 * I have no problem working with the markup, but the encyclopedia is edited by all, including inexperienced users. When more complex markup is necessary, it's used. It's not used to save 3 lines of whitespace. I strongly disagree with columns being used for such a small section and do not find your reasons to be very compelling. If it looked better, I've have absoultely no problem with something new, but it doesn't look better to me. Can you point out several other film articles where columns are used for a cast section? Chaz Beckett 13:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I can't. Precedent is not a compelling argument either, though. I've already explained my reasons. If you had a guideline backing you up it would be a different story, but all you have is precedent -- and theres no guideline that says precedent must stand, no matter how much people tend to use it in arguments. So do what you like. I'm frankly sick of people who only know how to do what's usually done, so I'll just wait 24 hours and go back to my way and we can edit war again. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion  •✗/C • 13:31, 12/24/2007


 * In the meantime, read the Manual of Style's When to use tables (the "columns" are just a simple table), especially the when tables are inappopriate section. This section states "If a list is quite long, or is relatively simple, use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats. Long lists can be hard to maintain if they are inside a table, and simple lists do not need the row-and-column format that a table provides." Look, it's not as if no other editor has ever thought of this before. In fact, I considered something similar long ago and then realized it doesn't actually improve an article. Unless you can provide more convincng reasoning, I'm going to stick with the MOS's guidelines and the precedent set by every other film article in the encyclopedia. Chaz Beckett 13:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No need, I already said if you have a guideline backing you up it's a different story. I still think it's better as columns but now you at least have a good reason. Go ahead and maintain the status quo. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion •✗/C • 13:43, 12/24/2007


 * You want to block me from editing wiki articles? Wait a few days and check from time to time imdb.com, you'll regret blocking me...

84.72.95.72 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox
I don't see how it does any harm. It's just to inform people that the userbox exists, in case they want to put it in their user page. It's out of the way, up by the banners. If it bothers you that much I'm fine with it not being here, I just don't see the harm. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion •✗/C • 06:25, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you have good intentions, but offering the userbox as something to incorporate on one's user page is not conducive for the article. Perhaps I'm heavy-handed when it comes to content that does not do anything for the article, but I'm wary of general discussions on talk pages, particular for topics that have some kind of fan base.  I've watched articles like Transformers and The Dark Knight, and they tend to get general comments often.  I'm not trying to censor the existence of the userbox, but I don't believe that it needs to be attached to the talk page.  My impression is that userboxes tend to be viral unless they're task-based, at which they can be announced at the appropriate talk pages (WikiProjects, RC Patrol, etc).  Perhaps if someone unaware of the talk page guidelines comes here and says something about the film, the comment could be removed and a nice note could be left on the person's talk page mentioning the userbox. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

robert patrick?
many sites mention him wanting to appear in the film....shouldn't that be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.118.226 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No? We don't care what "many" sites supposedly want. I'd like to point out that out of these supposedly many sites, you have listed exactly zero. Dlong (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you want as long as it is necessary to the article and you have a good source.Blackngold29 (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Robert Patrick and Annabeth Gish will not be appearing in the sequel. Source. --GSK (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Skinner
There are travel sheets for the film which list "Mitch Pileggi and family". So it looks like he'll be in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Beavis (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's wait to ensure a lock-in. I don't really doubt his appearance, but it can't be determined how the filmmakers want the film to be played out.  Even someone having filmed scenes doesn't guarantee their appearance. For example, Johnny Knoxville's role was edited out of Killshot.  I don't think we need to be in a hurry here, considering that it's not of utmost importance to list every actor this early on. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)