Talk:Under Siege

Untitled
Trivia for Under Siege: Though it was set aboard USS Missouri (BB-63) none of the film was actually filmed there. Instead it was mostly filmed aboard USS Alabama, at the time already a museum ship in Mobile, AL.

Ryback Rank
The present article states "is really a CPO". I recall he was a CPO SEAL, but got demoted when his security clearance was pulled (unjustly?) following a run in with a superior. Without a clearance he could only be a cook's mate. If I had a source to cite, I'd change it. --J Clear 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And the movie poster inaccurately shows Admiral shoulder boards. Jigen III 10:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a CPO's rank on those boards to me. ArcAngel (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, CPOs wear anchors directly on their choker collar, with bare shoulders (no shoulder boards). Jigen III (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Under siege.jpg
Image:Under siege.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Security Clearance
Sounds to me like someone who loses their security clearance proably won't be considered for a job walking around and fixing important ship related thingamabobs. Cook sounds like the most logical position. Lots42 (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cates"
It seems to me that it is "Ziggs" that is saying "Cate's" name before Ryback, kills him and escapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.41.95 (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Naval Aide Part
The credits list the part of "naval aide" played by a guy named Wes Carey: he's the aide to Adm. Bates who recites the list of ship's weaponry. Carey was a real-life sailor; I knew him as a warrant officer attending an officer school back in 1982-83. He was an expert on old Iowa-class battleships and was to be part of the Iowa recommissioning team. By the time Under Siege was made, Carey was probably retired. I'm curious whether he's seen any of this Internet stuff on Under Siege. BubbleDine (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Mr. Carey served on eleven different ships during his Navy career, including the USS Iowa BB61 and the USS Missouri BB63" according to an article in Galloping Pictures' Company Profile and Biographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Under Siege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140304172516/http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/09/movies/review-film-steven-seagal-on-a-ship-in-hot-water.html to http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/09/movies/review-film-steven-seagal-on-a-ship-in-hot-water.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Strannix or Stranix?
IMDb says Stranix, but a cursory Google search reveals both are used frequently; I didn't see any source that jumped out at me as particularly authoritative. DonIago (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strannix was on the end credits. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What is going on?
So why does someone keep reverting my stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.89.30 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The information you're adding is irrelevant to the overall plot of the film. Per WP:FILMPLOT, unnecessary information generally should not be included. If you feel it should remain in the article, please make it more clear how the information you're adding is ultimately relevant to the story. I've asked other editors to weigh in here at WT:FILM. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we or should we not have Erika Eleniak's name on the infobox
The question is should we or not have Erika Eleniak on the infobox of that movie, even though she's not on the poster's billing board? For me, I agree not to have her name on the infobox because she is not listed in the poster's billing board. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that we almost exclusively use the billing block for a film's poster to determine who gets listed in the Starring field for the inboox, so I'm inclined to agree. What are the arguments for ignoring that guidance from the infobox's documentation? DonIago (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It was Niteshift36 who wanted Eleniak to be on that infobox, as seen in this diff and that one. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm not, at this time, persuaded to make an exception to the general rule regarding the poster's billing block here. DonIago (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm right there with you. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I see the "rule" here, but it's not a policy or even a guideline, instead it's a "rule of thumb". I do respect that, but the instructions for the infobox do go on to say that local consensus can change that. Normally, I'd feel that the normal rule is a good one to follow. I think infoboxes get polluted with detail and stop being the snapshot they are meant to be. This is a rare exception to me. Eleniak was a major role in the movie. She is notable in her own right and, aside from how integral her role was, her screen time was arguably more than Gary Busey's. My recollection was that her casting was supposed to be something of a surprise, but I do not have a source for that. It's not a hill I'm going to die on, but I do think that the significance of the role and the amount of screen time it had make it worth the exception. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a matter of your opinion, or do you have sources that back up your assertions? If we're going to make an exception here, I'd like to know why we're making an exception here versus on many other film articles. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In thi edit you elevate Erika Eleniak above Gary Busey in the credit order. What is your rationale for this? Does she appear before Busey in the credits in the actual film? Like Doniago, I am having difficulty discerning the motivation for the edit. Our personal opinions regarding the prominence of an actor's role in any given film should not be a factor. Betty Logan (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's back up..... I didn't add Eleniak. I made no choice about the order. I merely reverted the removal. So I don't have a rationale for the order because I never made a decision about order. There is no "motive", no agenda. This is simply a matter of looking at reality versus the "rule" (which is really a guideline). I think that in this case, an exception (which is allowed for in the "rule") could be made because of the prominence of the role and the amount of time it warrants. Our personal opinions do have weight in discussions but let's look at other resources. Sources like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes etc almost always list her as the 4th person in the cast list. I'm not making the case for a some minor role or an some character listed as Bad guy #1. If you look at the press coverage of the movie, you find Eleniak named. Roger Ebert hated her role but gave her as many words as he did to Busey . Hollywood Reporter, TV Guide and the NYT  all reference 4 actors by name: Seagal, Jones, Busey and Eleniak. Like I said, I do respect the limitations of info in infoboxes. I also know that "rules" don't cover every instance and even this rule concedes that local consensus can change it. This is one of those rare occurrences in my mind. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When you reverted the removal, though, you did take ownership of her inclusion in the credits. You're certainly welcome to ping the editor who added her name originally.
 * In any event, I'm still not seeing a compelling reason to include her here; it appears to be more a matter of somewhat arbitrary editorial judgment than anything else to me. The guidance in the infobox may not carry the weight of policy, but I don't see a reason to make an exception in this instance either, and I'm not comfortable being an accessory to creating that kind of precedent for other film articles when we already have a bright-line rule-of-thumb. DonIago (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When I reverted, I took ownership? Ok, if you are going that route, fine. I thought BRD applied to film articles too. It was removed, I reverted and then....no discussion, it was just reverted and reference was made to the "rule". We're not changing the guidelines. The existing guideline clearly states that local consensus can make an exception. I presented the coverage of reliable third parties as support and that was completely ignored in favor of making sure we can worry about my "ownership". All this angst about precedents and whatnot seems a bit over the top. I honestly thought there could be a healthy discussion about this. Instead, it's slavishly following "rules" and worrying that this single instance will upset the entire infobox world. I'm done. I said before, this wasn't a hill worth dying on and this conversation has reminded me why I tapered back my participation in Wikipedia.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's shouldn't be about screentime, it should be about credit order. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Eleniak is listed in the opening credits just after Busey and is recognized as a lead character by the contemporaneous reviews (as noted above) means she should be listed in the infobox. This is a spot where I think an exception could be made to the poster billing block rule. An argument could even be made for Colm Meany as he is likewise listed separately from any other cast member in the opening credits like Busey and Eleniak (whereas all other credits have at least two actors listed simultaneously), but he wasn't specifically commented upon by critics the way Eleniak was. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)