Talk:Untraceable

Notable?
Is this really notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.167.114 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a serious note. Luigibob (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

KillWithMe link
Do we really need the "KillWithMe.com" link here? That's just a site designed for startling that has little to do with the film... I'm pretty sure it's a fansite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.85.104 (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a fansite. It is the name of the website used within the movie.  (I was an extra for a few weeks.)  Previously it showed trailers, now it shows some of the on-set graphics, and is undoubtedly the work of the production company.  —EncMstr 08:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

this site is a promotional for the movie. it is in no way a fansite.

EncMstr is right. I think it's a site that contributes to the movie. I think there's a similarity to Heroes Evolutions. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Do we really need the "KillWithMe.com" link here?"

Encycopedias run by movie corporations - no. The answer is no. Nobody but someone connected to the film will find a reason to link an advert to an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.51.37 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See discussion above. KillWithMe is one of the "main characters" in the movie.  —EncMstr (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy"
I removed the entire "Controversy" section, as it's nothing but original research. Unless someone can find a reliable source, it shouldn't be readded to the article. Esrever (klaT) 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In this case, reliable sources also need to 1) directly compare the two, and 2) indicate that there is a controversy over it. As of right now, the sources do neither of these. Pairadox (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not original research. I provided 5 separate synopsis pages (not to mention I have seen the episode myself). Reading any of these makes it quite clear they are at least remarkably similar. Someone has to notice this first. What difference does it make if it is documented on Wikipedia first? Qasabah (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is original research is the claim that the movie is based on the episode and the writer of the episode should have some credit for the movie. Pairadox (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then how about just leaving off that part? Have you read any of the episode synopsis sites so that we can at least agree on that part? Mostly I object to the writer getting screwed. Qasabah (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Nor is it the place for you own personal crusade. If the writer of the episode takes it to court and it hits the news, then it might be worth mentioning, but it's not going in just because you notice a similarity. Pairadox (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly this is in no way a personal crusade and referring to it as such is condescending. I have no personal stake in this. I am, however, wondering if perhaps you do.


 * Secondly I did not notice "a similarity". Comparing the trailer alone with any one of the episode guides I referenced would illustrate to even the most skeptical that the similarities go beyond the superficial and that there is a point to debate. The similarities do not fall into the realm of original research. The similarities are a fact verifiable by reading the references cited.

I agree that Wikipedia is not the place for original research which is why I place my observations based on independent sources in a "Controversy" sub section. This online encyclopedia is full of controversies many of which are, and will always be, insoluble. It's strength as a resource, however lies in the The_Wisdom_of_Crowds. By pointing out this "similarity" more minds can debate it. As it currently stands one person is putting it up and the other is taking it down. Not constructive and certainly not in the spirit of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve.Qasabah (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are proposing is the very definition of "Original Research." Wikipedia editors are not policemen. It is not for us to right the wrongs of the world (at least not on Wikipedia); we are here to present previously published material in a repackaged format. Any controversies that appear in other article are about documented disagreements, not a repository for personal gripes. Unless you can come up with a reliable source for this, it doesn't meet inclusion criteria, period. Pairadox (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got to agree with Pairadox here. What you're proposing is exactly what Wikipedia defines as original research. If this whole issue is truly a controversy, then you need to find secondary sources that talk about it. But the material that you're proposing to add goes against WP policy. Esrever (klaT) 15:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand both of your point of views. However, unlike the majority of subjects within Wikipedia there is no way to find a secondary source that would qualify as reputable. There are no experts in "sameness".


 * I can make a secondary source myself but that would be an academic exercise.


 * I am also interested to note the Production section does not cite any references and yet it has not been removed. Can you clarify how this is different?


 * What is a solution to this type of issue? It is hardly confined to this article.

Qasabah (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But if it's truly a "controversy", there ought to be published sources noting the similarities and the fact that the TV episode's writer hasn't been credited. If not, then it just smacks of someone making a mountain out of a molehill. That's why I originally removed the "Controversy" section to begin with. It was pushing a particular POV, rather than objectively relating information. The other sections didn't have that same flaw.


 * From the policy on verifiability: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (emphasis in original). Essentially, I'm challenging the material you'd like to keep in the article. The burden, therefore, is on you to provide a reliable source for it.  I don't mean that to sound snarky; it's really nothing personal. :) Esrever (klaT) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely understand that. I am an avid user of Wikipedia for that exact reason. My issue is that the similarities are easily verifiable by personally comparing the two and I provided 5 different places a synopsis of the Millennium episode could be referred to.


 * There is, as far as I can see, no way to find a "reliable source" for something like this as it is based on powers of observation, a skill we all have in greater or lesser amounts. As I said before I challenge anyone to state their qualifications to judge sameness. There are legal standards that can be applied of course but that is exactly because no one can be relied upon to judge sameness.


 * Without getting too esoteric total objectivity is impossible to achieve however just as someone may have observed the production of this film I have observed major similarities between these two productions.


 * Upon further consideration perhaps the "facts" about production carry a greater burden of proof as they are being presented as absolutes. The controversy section, by definition, begs personal verification.


 * As I stated before, I have no vested interest, financial or emotional in this issue (in truth I took this as an opportunity to learn Wikipedia's editing dialect) but it got me to thinking about the grey areas inherent in "truth" and how they relate to Wikipedia and its verifiability/reliablity policy.


 * If we were to implement these policies rigorously Wikipedia would be next to useless on matters of history, religion would be dealt with in the same way as sections on unicorns and atlantis, and items on philosophical thought would be disallowed as representing a personal POV.

Qasabah (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you think then you still don't understand the difference between published material on controversial topics and unpublished personal theories. Either way, I'm bowing out of this particular merry-go-round. You admit there is no way to find a reliable source, you say you understand you have to provide one for it to be included, but you still insist that for some reason the rules don't apply here. This conversation hasn't advanced one iota from the first post. I don't know if you're deliberately dragging this out or not but I'm not playing anymore. Provide a source, stop inserting your theory in the article, or see this advance to another level of dispute resolution, your choice, but I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over again. Pairadox (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you are not bowing out. You're just trying to get the last word without answering the question I raised. I understand perfectly well the distinction you are _trying_ to make and am not suggesting special treatment in this case or that the rules do not apply I am still just asking for an example of what would constitute a verifiable reliable source in an instance like this.

However now that you have "bowed out" I guess that will have to come from someone else. Qasabah (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'll answer this one because, although it was linked to a couple of times above, it wasn't actually drawn to your attention. Wikipedia has an entire policy page that covers sources and verifiability. It can be found by following this link: WP:V. It's too long to summarize here so you should just read it for yourself. That will answer your question. Pairadox (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read it, several times, and in almost all instances I completely understand how to apply it. In this type of situation i.e. comparison for "sameness" between two works of fiction I cannot think of a better way to cite reliable verifiable sources than summaries (multiple) of the episode in question for personal comparison. Once again what would you consider to be acceptable?

Should the section be called similarities with the Millennium episode "The Mikado". Would the episode summaries be acceptable as evidence then? [User:Qasabah|Qasabah]] (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above post; why is there not a section talking about the blatant similarities with "The Mikado"?? While I agree there is no "controversy" in mainstream media about this (which is exactly why a lot of folks are irate about the similarities, I'd say!) there are very, very clear similarities that can't and shouldn't be ignored, even if it's just a case of "what an amazing coincidence!" trivia. Wikipedia may not be the place for personal "conspiracy theories" about stealing other folks' ideas, but surely pointing out that something is almost exactly the same as something else - by design or "accident" - is noteworthy information? I'm a little surprised at some of the opposition above to including this information, frankly. Writing "I think they ripped off the episode!" is obviously not the way to go here, but comparing multiple events of the episode with events of the film to illustrate similarities is surely informative? Banjo oz (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary
give it a summary or else the article goes deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.12.173 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat? WP policy doesn't require a plot summary. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * no but a plot summary would help many people so if you dont want a plot summary go through delete all pllot summaries lets see what happpens...You dont need to know who i am —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't understand what you're asking. It could use a plot summary, but that's not a prerequisite to having a wikipedia article. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

just put a fucking plot out line in there so people know if they want to view it every one i know thinks the movie looks good so they turn to wkipedia to read about the movie but they cant beecause theres no summary You dont need to know who i am--Jackjohnson15 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Civility, please. Go see it yourself and write your own plot summary. No need to swear at other people to do something you could be doing. Good luck. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sequel?
Hello, I was just reading the article and I was wondering if it would be alright to add a section about the proposed sequel that I have been hearing about on the net that is set to be released in 2012. Any feedback would be appreciated. Master1001 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible if you find reliable sources which are carefully cited. —EncMstr (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)