User:Darkwarriorblake

  lively joker

Thank you, tireless warrior for sourced content, for quality articles on video games and films, such as Batman: Arkham City, Prometheus and The Expendables 2, for the mantra "Expanding article" and, for pointing at "misusing rules to ban people for no reason" and "Brownie, better than eating a Xmas tree any day", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Current Project

 * Take One great film from each year to FA Status.

1980s - 10/10 Completed - 100% FA

 * 1980 - The Empire Strikes Back / Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back
 * 1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark
 * 1982 - The Thing
 * 1983 - Trading Places
 * 1984 - Ghostbusters
 * 1985 - Back to the Future
 * 1986 - Aliens - SB
 * 1987 - RoboCop
 * 1988 - Die Hard
 * 1989 - Ghostbusters II

1990s - 9/10 Completed - 50% FA

 * 1990 - Total Recall / Special effects of Total Recall
 * 1991 - Terminator 2: Judgment Day / Special Effects of Terminator 2: Judgment Day
 * 1992 - Batman Returns
 * 1993 - Groundhog Day
 * 1994 - The Shawshank Redemption
 * 1995 - Seven
 * 1996 - Scream
 * 1997 - Starship Troopers / Special effects of Starship Troopers
 * 1998 - Saving Private Ryan
 * 1999 - The Matrix

2000s - 1/10 Completed - 10% FA

 * 2000 -
 * 2001 -
 * 2002 - Spider-Man
 * 2003 -
 * 2004 - Spider-Man 2
 * 2005 -
 * 2006 -
 * 2007 -
 * 2008 - The Dark Knight / Special effects of The Dark Knight
 * 2009 -

2010s - 3/10 Completed - 20% FA

 * 2010 -
 * 2011 -
 * 2012 - Dredd / Prometheus
 * 2013 -
 * 2014 - John Wick
 * 2015 -
 * 2016 -
 * 2017 -
 * 2018 - Mission: Impossible – Fallout
 * 2019 -

Films

 * Die Hard – promoted to GA status (July 2020) / FA status (April 2021)
 * Dredd – promoted to GA status (November 2012) / FA status (December 2013)
 * Ghostbusters – promoted to FA status (November 2021)
 * Ghostbusters II – promoted to GA status (September 2019) / FA status (April 2020)
 * Groundhog Day – promoted to GA status (June 2020) / – promoted to FA status (September 2020)
 * Prometheus (2012 film) – promoted to GA status (September 2012) / FA status (May 2013)
 * Raiders of the Lost Ark – promoted to FA status (June 2021)
 * The Shawshank Redemption – promoted to GA status (November 2017) / FA status (January 2018)
 * The Thing (1982 film) – promoted to GA status (March 2018) / FA status (July 2018)
 * Trading Places – promoted to GA status (July 2020) / FA status (November 2020)

Video Games

 * Batman: Arkham Asylum – promoted to FA status (August 2013)
 * Batman: Arkham City – promoted to GA status (November 2012) / FA status (March 2013)
 * Dishonored – promoted to GA status (January 2013) / FA status (March 2014)
 * South Park: The Stick of Truth – promoted to GA status (April 2014) / FA status (January 2016)
 * South Park: The Fractured but Whole – promoted to GA status (January 2018)
 * Spider-Man (2018 video game) – promoted to GA status (June 2019) / FA status (September 2019)
 * Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines – promoted to GA status (September 2014) / FA status (December 2015)
 * Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2
 * Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption – promoted to GA status (June 2015) / FA status (October 2015)

Misc

 * Joker (comics) – promoted to GA status (May 2015)

Good Article projects

 * Batman: Arkham Knight – promoted to GA status (October 2015)
 * Batman: Arkham Origins – promoted to GA status (February 2014)
 * Fast Five – promoted to GA status (October 2011)
 * Horrible Bosses – promoted to GA status (October 2011)
 * Project X – promoted to GA status (December 2012)
 * Scream – promoted to GA status (July 2011)
 * Scrooged – promoted to GA status (December 2018)
 * The Expendables 2 – promoted to GA status (December 2012)
 * The Man with the Iron Fists – promoted to GA status (February 2013)
 * Tower Heist – promoted to GA status (December 2011)

Articles created

 * The Watch – promoted to GA status (December 2012)
 * Venom (comic book) (February 2014)
 * The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
 * List of Scream cast members
 * Planet of the Symbiotes
 * Freeloaders (film)
 * Insufferable
 * List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones (Working for FL)
 * Alternative versions of Joker
 * What About Bob? (disambiguation)
 * Music of Batman: Arkham City
 * Janty Yates

Resources

 * https://iabot.toolforge.org/?page=runbotsingle
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/A%E2%80%93Z
 * https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/
 * User:JimmyBlackwing/Sourcing video game articles
 * https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/oral-histories-ghostbusters-nirvana-clueless-er-cheers-kanye-west
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20210222172324/https://www.vulture.com/article/the-101-best-movie-endings-of-all-time-ranked.html
 * MOS:LEADCLUTTER for parentheticals in lead
 * Reliable sources/Perennial sources
 * New pages patrol
 * https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/24/opinion/sunday/ben-schott-movies-billing-blocks.html?hp
 * https://www.worldcat.org/title/213305397
 * "(AND "best" OR "great" OR "iconic" OR "enduring" OR "popular")"

Response for size to save me repeating myself every time
So I see you have raised WP:SIZERULE and/or referred to WP:SIZE. Let me take this opportunity to quote the section called "Size Guideline", found here which states, "Some useful rules of thumb for splitting, trimming or merging articles". First, we must answer what is "rule of thumb"? The term is said to have originated in the mid 1600s[https://www.oed.com/dictionary/rule-of-thumb_n?tl=true#:~:text=Where%20does%20the%20phrase%20rule%20of%20thumb%20come%20from%3F&text=The%20earliest%20known%20use%20of,formed%20within%20English%2C%20by%20compounding. (1)] and relates to the method of making rough measurements(2) although not strict. Returning to "Size Guideline", I refer you to each section, ranging from " 15000 words", the latter of which uses the strongest and most condeming wording of "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", most condemning in this circumstance being a little bit of humour on my part as this of course is not a command, just a suggestion. In this particular scenario I would like to remind you that the articles on which I work are generally in the range of 8000-10000 and this is because they are almost exclusively on the subject of a film which includes a plot summary, critical reception, and box office sections but also primarily a production section, something I believe to be the most important and truly the heart of the article since this describes how the movie was made and thus what was unique about it. Every film has a critical reception or box office section, but the production and design can vary wildly which for fans of the film, the people you would typically expect to be reading the article. I have made every effort to keep these segments trimmed despite WP:SIZE and/or WP:SIZERULE only being a guideline and not a hard rule even though it is often wielded as if it is one and used as an easy means of obstruction. As articles I work on, such as this one, are typically within this word range, the harshest language used is "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." As you can see, the guideline does not mandate cuts be made, as stated above, it's merely a suggestion and on a more in-depth topic such as this, focused on a singular and unique subject, it falls within the reasonable scope as outlined here: "though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Film articles rarely have the content to justify being split as the split content cannot often justify it's own article. Further quoting WP:SIZE and/or WP:SIZERULE, it reads "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage."

Rare examples would be something like Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame which, because of the shared production of both films, the production and special effects were split into a single joint article, or articles such as Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back, Special effects of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and Special effects of Starship Troopers where there is a wealth of effects information available for films where practical visuals were prevalent, and are simply too vast to contain within the top level articles. I assure you that this is not the case with the subject we are discussing today. I admit I do find complaints about size, while assumedly well-intentioned, to be generally unfair as it often requires interest content be excised to meet an invisible and arbitrary barrier on something that has been extensively researched and copyedited by multiple people. We are meant to be an encylopedia and of course Criteria 1b and 1c of the Featured article criteria are that it is Comprehensive (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;) and well-researched (it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature). This is, of course, a paradox then since we are meant to remain neutral and yet we are playing wiki-God by deciding what facts readers deserve to know and which they don't, which is not our place in my humble opinion. While my main focus is content directly related to the film, part of the Featured Article criteria also demands a thematic analysis of subjects such as this, which of course requires more work of myself which is not expected of those who work on subjects less apropros to thematic analysis. Is this fair? Quite possibly not, yet it is demanded and this obviously increases the word count further though it is very unlikely that a reader would come to an article on a popular film to know a Film Studies students' thoughts on the subject. Regardless, this word count does contribute to the overall count and it is my firm belief that since it is required yet not essential to the main topic that such a word count should not be counted against the overall article since it is a mandated supplement and not the core for which the majority of readers will have come in search. All of this is to say that while I appreciate you have looked at this article and found it to be long from an abstract top-level perspective and readily quoted WP:SIZE and/or WP:SIZERULE, I fundamentally do not believe it is applied appopriately in this case and ask you to take that into consideration going forwards as while I will do my best to meet your requests I will not make an article subjectively worse to meet an arbitrary guideline that violates Featured Article Criterias 1b and 1c. Thank you :) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)